Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change

Managing Forest Ecosystems
Lauri Hetemäki
Jyrki Kangas
Heli Peltola Editors
Forest
Bioeconomy
and Climate
Change
Volume 42
Series Editors
Margarida Tomé, Instituto Superior de Agronomía, Lisboa, Portugal
Thomas Seifert, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources,
University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Mikko Kurttila, Natural Resources Institute, Helsinki, Finland
The aim of the book series Managing Forest Ecosystems is to present state-of-the-
art research results relating to the practice of forest management. Contributions are
solicited from prominent authors. Each reference book, monograph or proceedings
volume will be focused to deal with a specific context. Typical issues of the series
are: resource assessment techniques, evaluating sustainability for even-aged and
uneven-aged forests, multi-objective management, predicting forest development,
optimizing forest management, biodiversity management and monitoring, risk
assessment and economic analysis.
Lauri Hetemäki • Jyrki Kangas • Heli Peltola
Editors
Forest Bioeconomy
and Climate Change
Editors
Lauri Hetemäki Jyrki Kangas
European Forest Institute School of Forest Sciences
Joensuu, Finland University of Eastern Finland
Joensuu, Finland
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
Heli Peltola
School of Forest Sciences
University of Eastern Finland
Joensuu, Finland
ISSN 1568-1319 ISSN 2352-3956 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-99205-7 ISBN 978-3-030-99206-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022 . This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
In the past 50 years, the human population has doubled and the global economy has
grown nearly fourfold, together boosting the demand for food, energy and materi-
als. The biosphere, upon which humanity depends, has been altered to an unparal-
leled degree.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been yet another wake-up call for us to stop
exceeding the planetary boundaries. After all, deforestation and biodiversity loss
have been identified as key processes in enabling the direct transmission of zoonotic
infectious diseases. However, it is important to highlight that such a pandemic is not
yet another global crisis, but rather one more consequence––like biodiversity loss or
climate change––of the same fundamental problem––our economic system. This
system is addicted to fossil resources and growth at all costs, and has failed to value
our most important capital––nature.
Having arrived at the present tipping point, we clearly need a new economic
paradigm that puts the basis for human prosperity within the planetary boundaries.
How to transition towards this is the tricky part. Due to the speed and scale of
change needed, the greatest economic transformation in human history is required
in order to achieve a climate-neutral, circular and inclusive economy that prospers
in harmony with nature. This paradigm shift requires transformative policies,
mission-oriented innovation and investments in bio-based solutions and natural
capital, while business models and markets need to be rethought, as well as produc-
tion and consumption cycles. Above all, we need to address the past failure of our
economy to value nature because our health and well-being fundamentally
depend on it.
The circular bioeconomy paradigm is the new paradigm that we need. It builds
on the synergies of the circular economy and bioeconomic concepts––two concepts
that have so far been developed in parallel, but that now need to be connected in
order to transform our economy. A circular bioeconomy offers a conceptual frame-
work for enhancing and sustainably managing our renewable natural capital to
holistically transform our land, food and industrial systems, in addition to reimagin-
ing our cities and creating new jobs and prosperity.
v
vi Foreword
In such a new economic paradigm, our forests are called on to play a new and
catalytic role because they are:
–– The main hosts for terrestrial biodiversity
–– The largest terrestrial carbon sinks
–– The main terrestrial source of precipitation
–– The largest source for non-food and non-feed biological resources
However, unlocking their potential requires a new vision that sees our forests not as
a tool to ‘compensate’ for the existing broken economic system but rather as a trans-
formative system for inspiring and creating the new economic paradigm that we
need, one where life, and not consumption, becomes its true engine and its true
purpose.
This book is the most crucial science-based milestone in that direction, as it pro-
vides a holistic understanding of why, what and how forests, forestry and forest-
based solutions can contribute to the development of a climate- neutral,
circular-bioeconomy paradigm. I would like to congratulate all the authors of the
book for putting together this valuable work. Moreover, I want to thank those
authors, such as the Assistant Director of the EFI, Lauri Hetemäki, who have con-
tributed to creating an honest, open and informed dialogue between different stake-
holders and scientific disciplines within and between countries (and in the EU) in
order to realise the full potential of forest-related science for sustainable action.
European Forest Institute (EFI) Marc Palahí

Joensuu, Finland
Aim and Scope
Climate change, global population growth, declining natural resources and the loss
of biodiversity challenge us to move towards a global bioeconomy, based on the
sustainable utilisation of renewable natural resources in the production of energy,
products and services. The linear economic model based on fossil raw materials and
products is coming to an end. Major global agreements and policy goals––the Paris
Climate Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals––have
given licence for our economic model to be changed. There is the need for a new
economic paradigm that will place the basis for human prosperity within the plan-
etary boundaries. One essential part of this new paradigm has to be a forest-based
circular bioeconomy.
The shift to this bio-based economic paradigm should be a long-term strategy for
decoupling economic growth from climate change and environmental degradation.
Developments in science and technology are laying the foundations for the bioeco-
nomic age. Bio-based products have already emerged that can substitute for fossil-
based materials, such as plastics, chemicals, textiles, cement and many other
materials. Now, the big question is how to turn these scientific and technological
successes into a global economic paradigm shift, and in a sustainable way. This
requires us to look at the potential synergies and trade-offs that such a change will
inevitably bring and how these can be integrated with the economic, ecological and
social goals of society.
Right now, we know that climate change will take place in this century, although
there is uncertainty as to the degree of disruption it will bring. It will have an impact
on forests. Like humans, trees are mortal. Climate change threatens to increase the
mortality rate of trees. Disturbances, such as droughts, fires, storms and bark- beetle
outbreaks, have already become stronger, more extensive and more damaging. This
trend requires us to adapt to climate change and to build resilience in our forests
against climate change. So, how can we do this?
These themes and questions are the focus of this book, which builds upon recent
scientific evidence concerning forests and climate change, and examines how the
development of a forest bioeconomy can help to address the grand challenges of our
time. In the book, experts analyse the economic, ecological and social dimensions
vii
viii Aim and Scope
of forests and climate change, along with the basis for, and shaping of, a forest-
based bioeconomy, and the links between these. In this way, it provides information
on the potential of forests and forest-based products to help in mitigating climate
change, and the types of measures that can be taken to adapt forests to climate
change, thereby building forest resilience. The book outlines a climate-smart for-
estry approach, based on three main objectives. First, reducing net emissions of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Second, adapting and building forest resil-
ience to climate change. Third, sustainably increasing forest productivity and eco-
nomic welfare based on forestry. The climate-smart forestry approach is illustrated
by case studies from Czech Republic, Finland, Germany and Spain––countries that
have quite different forests and forest sectors. Finally, we suggest the types of policy
measures required to address the challenges of developing, and increase the oppor-
tunities associated with, a sustainable forest bioeconomy.
To the best of our understanding, this is the first book devoted to examining
the links between climate change and a forest bioeconomy, and outlining the
need for a climate-smart forestry approach to address the many needs we have
for forests. The book is directed at forest- and environment-sector stakeholders
and decision- makers, as well as the research community, the broader education
sector and the media.
Acknowledgements
This book is based mainly on work stemming from the FORBIO project ‘Sustainable,
climate-neutral and resource-efficient forest-based bioeconomy’, which was funded
by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) of the Academy of Finland. Support for
finalising the book was provided under Finland’s UNITE Flagship ‘Forest– Human–
Machine Interplay––Building Resilience, Redefining Value Networks and Enabling
Meaningful Experiences’. Funding from the Academy of Finland (grant number
314224 for SRC FORBIO project 2015–2021, and grant number 337127 for UNITE
Flagship 2020–2024) is also gratefully acknowledged. The Finnish Forest
Foundation is thanked for enabling the open-access publication of this work. Finally,
we would like to express our gratitude to Janni Kunttu from the European Forest
Institute for helping us with the administration and technical editing of the book.
ix
Contents
1 Forest Bioeconomy, Climate Change

and Managing the Change�� 1
Lauri Hetemäki and Jyrki Kangas
2 Planetary Boundaries and the Role
of the Forest-Based Sector�� 19
Lauri Hetemäki and Jyri Seppälä
3
Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation and Risk Management �� 33
Ari Venäläinen, Kimmo Ruosteenoja, Ilari Lehtonen, Mikko Laapas,
Olli-Pekka Tikkanen, and Heli Peltola
4
Outlook for the Forest-Based Bioeconomy�� 55
Elias Hurmekoski, Lauri Hetemäki, and Janne Jänis
5 Forest Biomass Availability �� 91
Perttu Anttila and Hans Verkerk
6
Carbon Sequestration and Storage in European Forests�� 113
Antti Kilpeläinen and Heli Peltola
7
Contribution of Wood-Based Products to Climate Change
Mitigation�� 129
Elias Hurmekoski, Jyri Seppälä, Antti Kilpeläinen, and Janni Kunttu
8 Climate-Change Mitigation in the Forest-Based
Sector: A Holistic View�� 151
Elias Hurmekoski, Antti Kilpeläinen, and Jyri Seppälä
9 Climate-Smart Forestry Approach�� 165
Lauri Hetemäki and Hans Verkerk
10
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Czech Republic �� 173
Emil Cienciala
xi
xii Contents
11
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Finland�� 183
Heli Peltola, Tero Heinonen, Jyrki Kangas, Ari Venäläinen,
Jyri Seppälä, and Lauri Hetemäki
12
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Germany�� 197
Marc Hanewinkel, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik,
and Rasoul Yousefpour
13
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Spain�� 211
Elena Górriz-Mifsud, Aitor Ameztegui, Jose Ramón González,
and Antoni Trasobares
14
The Way Forward: Management and Policy Actions �� 229
Lauri Hetemäki, Jyrki Kangas, Antti Asikainen, Janne Jänis,
Jyri Seppälä, Ari Venäläinen, and Heli Peltola
Epilogue�� 249
Glossary�� 251
Editors and Contributors
About the Editors
Lauri Hetemäki is Professor of Practice at the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,

University of Helsinki, and a senior researcher at the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance,
European Forest Institute (EFI). He has a PhD in economics from the University of
Helsinki. Previously, he has worked as the assistant director of EFI, Professor of
Forest Sector Foresight at the University of Eastern Finland, and as a senior scientist
at the Finnish Forest Research Institute. He has extensive experience in science-
policy work, e.g., in supporting the work of the European Parliament, the European
Commission, and the Finnish Government and Parliament, as well as coordinating
pan-European science-policy studies. He is an author of over 250 scientific and
popular publications. Hetemäki is a Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of
Agriculture and Forestry.
Jyrki Kangas is Professor of Forest Bioeconomy at the University of Eastern

Finland and director of the Forest-Human-Machine Interplay (UNITE) Flagship of
Science. He has a PhD in forest sciences from the University of Joensuu. He was the
director general of Metsähallitus (2006–2014), director of forestry at UPM
(2003–2006) and CEO of UPM’s real estate daughter company Bonvesta
(2005–2006), and Professor of Forest Planning and a research station head at
Finnish Forest Research Institute (1994–2003). He is an author of over 300 scien-
tific and popular publications. Kangas has been awarded the Scientific Achievement
Award by IUFRO. His positions of trust have included vice president of EUSTAFOR,
chair of Koli Forum, and chair of the Foundation for European Forest Research,
among others. Currently, he is a member of the board of directors of Business
Joensuu Ltd and of A. Ahlström Real Estate Ltd. Kangas was FORBIO’s vice PI
and interaction coordinator.
xiii
xiv Editors and Contributors
Heli Peltola is Professor of Silvicultural Sciences at the Faculty of Science and

Forestry, University of Eastern Finland. She has a PhD in silvicultural sciences from
the University of Joensuu. Previously, she was a member of the Research Council
for Biosciences Health and the Environment (BTY 2019–2021). Currently, she is a
member of the Finnish Climate Change Panel (2020–2023). She has extensive expe-
rience in leadership of research projects, including the SRC FORBIO project from
2015 to 2021. She is an author of over 200 scientific peer-reviewed publications.
Peltola was awarded with the decoration Knight First Class of the Order of the
White Rose of Finland by the President of the Republic of Finland in 2020, and with
the Carola and Carl-Olof Ternryd’s award by the Linnaeus Academy’s Research
Foundation in 2020.
Contributors
Aitor Ameztegui The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC),
Solsona, Spain University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
Perttu Anttila Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland
Antti Asikainen Natural Resources Institute Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Emil Cienciala IFER – Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research, Jílové u Prahy and
Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech
Republic
Jose Ramón González The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia
(CTFC), Solsona, Spain
Elena Górriz-Mifsud The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia
Marc Hanewinkel University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Tero Heinonen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Lauri Hetemäki European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Elias Hurmekoski University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Janne Jänis University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Jyrki Kangas University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Sari Karvinen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Antti Kilpeläinen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Janni Kunttu European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
Editors and Contributors xv
Mikko Laapas Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Ilari Lehtonen Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Antti Mutanen Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland
Heli Peltola University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Kimmo Ruosteenoja Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Jyri Seppälä Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Olli-Pekka Tikkanen University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Antoni Trasobares The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia
Ari Venäläinen Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Hans Verkerk European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
Jari Viitanen Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, Finland
Rasoul Yousefpour University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Prologue
Isn’t it surprising that dead forests – for coal results from the decomposition of for-
ests – should annually supply a larger volume of raw material than live forests?
The above statement, by Egon Glesinger some 70 years ago in his visionary
book, The Coming Age of Wood, is still true today (Glesinger 1949, p. 21).1 In 2019,
global coal production was around twice that of roundwood production.2 This at a
time when, for several decades, we had already understood that coal was a major
driver of climate change, which was not common knowledge at the time of
Glesinger’s writing. His book reflected the situation following World War II––the
need to rebuild much of the global infrastructure and improve the welfare of war-
ravaged people. Glesinger was influenced by Germany’s innovative efforts to build
an economy based on wood. Germany’s motivation was to enhance self-sufficiency
in transportation fuels, chemicals, feedstock and other critical raw materials and
products at a time when there were increasing risks to their supply. In a pioneering
way, Germany advanced and utilised wood chemistry for these purposes.
Glesinger saw the role of wood in a much more extensive and diverse way than
was generally the case 70 years ago, or may sometimes be the case even today. He
detailed three major reasons for using more wood and why it was unique among all
raw materials––wood is universal (it serves many requirements of human exis-
tence), wood is abundant (forests cover a major proportion of Earth’s land area) and
wood is inexhaustible (with the proper management of forests, wood is renewable).
Thus, unlike coal, natural gas or oil, forests (wood) are not mines that will eventu-
ally be depleted.
1
Glesinger E (1949) The Coming Age of Wood. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York. http://www.
archive.org/details/comingageofwood00gles. Accessed 20 Jan 2021.
2
In 2019, global coal production amounted to 7921 Mt (International Energy Agency 2020) and
roundwood production 3964 Mm3 (FAOSTAT), which, according to a rough estimate, was around
3500 Mt. Converting roundwood cubic metres to tonnes can only be an approximation due to the
weight of wood varying across tree species and timber type.
xvii
xviii Prologue
Today and tomorrow, the need to feed, clothe, package, transport and build––that
is, secure the basic necessities of life––will remain. For example, it has been pro-
jected (UN 2019) that, by the end of this century, there will be 3 billion more people
to be fed and more than 2 billion new homes to be built (Smith 2018). Glesinger
argued that wood should be viewed as central to the satisfaction of human needs.
This is even more true today, since we want to also satisfy these needs with sustain-
able production and consumption, which we have not been able to do in the past
70 years. A large part of sustainability is to do it in a way that does not affect our
climate, but rather helps to mitigate the ongoing climate change.
In this book, we argue that to marry human needs with sustainability is not possible
without using also biological resources for those needs. In fact, we posit that a cir-
cular bioeconomy is an essential tool––even if insufficient––for facilitating the
movement to sustainable development and reaching the goals world states have set
for climate-change mitigation and societal welfare.
Lauri Hetemäki
Chapter 1
Forest Bioeconomy, Climate Change
and Managing the Change
Lauri Hetemäki and Jyrki Kangas
Abstract In order to realise Agenda 2030, or the United Nations’ Sustainable

Development Goals, and the Paris Climate Agreement, the business-as-usual
model––the policies, production and consumption habits we have been following
thus far––will not work. Instead, it is necessary to change the existing economic
model and how we advance societal well-being. Here, we argue that a forest-based
bioeconomy will be a necessary, albeit insufficient, part of this transformation. The
European forest-based sector has significant potential to help in mitigating climate
change. However, there is no single way to do this. The means to accomplish this
are diverse, and these measures also need to be tailored to regional settings.
Moreover, the climate mitigation measures should be advanced in synergy with the
other societal goals, such as economic and social sustainability. Climate mitigation
in the forest- based sector requires a holistic perspective.
Keywords Circular bioeconomy · Transformation · Forests · Climate change

mitigation · Synergies · Trade-offs
1.1 Introduction
The world states agreed, in 2015, on Agenda 2030, or the United Nations’ (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Paris Climate Agreement. It is
widely agreed that the business-as-usual model––the policies, production and
L. Hetemäki (*)
European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Kangas
University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
© The Author(s) 2022 1

L. Hetemäki et al. (eds.), Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change, Managing
Forest Ecosystems 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4_1
2 L. Hetemäki and J. Kangas
consumption habits we have been following thus far––will not help us to reach these
goals. These agreements and goals can therefore be interpreted as providing a man-
date to change the existing economic model–how we advance societal well-being.
In this book, we argue that a forest-based bioeconomy is a necessary part of this
transformation.
There are many definitions of the bioeconomy, as well as usage of similar terms,
such as biobased economy and green economy (D’Amato et al. 2017). In practice,
the bioeconomy has turned out to be a changing concept and adjustable for various
purposes. One useful definition is from the Global Bioeconomy Summit (GBS)
2015: “bioeconomy as the knowledge-based production and utilization of biological
resources, innovative biological processes and principles to sustainably provide
goods and services across all economic sectors”. The bioeconomy therefore encom-
passes the traditional bioeconomy sectors, such as forestry, paper and wood prod-
ucts, as well as emerging new industries, such as textiles, chemicals, new packaging
and building products, biopharma, and also the services related to those products
(research and development, education, sales, marketing, extension, consulting, cor-
porate governance, etc.), and forest services (recreation, hunting, tourism, carbon
storage, biodiversity, etc.).
Hetemäki et al. (2017) extended this definition to a circular bioeconomy, also
linking it to the natural-capital concept. A circular bioeconomy builds on the mutual
efforts of the circular economy and bioeconomy concepts, which in many ways are
interlinked. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has indicated that imple-
menting the concepts of a bioeconomy and circular economy together as a systemic
joint approach would improve resource efficiency and help reduce environmental
pressures (EEA 2018). We further suggest that these two concepts, which are often
considered separately, could create marked synergies when applied as a hybrid
approach, making simultaneous use of both, as is the concept of the circular
bioeconomy.
In this book, we understand bioeconomics along similar lines to the GBS (2015),
and the extension of this introduced by Hetemäki et al. (2017). We particularly
emphasise three key aspects of bioeconomics:
• the transformational role of the bioeconomy in helping to mitigate climate
change, and to replace fossil-based products (e.g. oil-based plastics and textiles),
non-renewable materials (e.g. steel, concrete) and non- sustainable biological
products (e.g. cotton in certain regions);
• the enhancement of the natural-capital approach to the economy, involving bet-
ter integration of the value of natural resources and life-sustaining regulatory
systems (e.g. biodiversity, freshwater supplies, flood control) with economic
development, as suggested by Helm (2015) and in the action plan of Palahí et al.
(2020); and
• the improvement of the quality of economic growth, making it sustainable and
operating in synergy with SDGs rather than trade-offs.
The first aspect is generally already well understood in bioeconomic strategies, the
latter less so. The long-term sustainable production of natural capital relies on the
key role of forests as the most important land-based biological infrastructure on the
1 Forest Bioeconomy, Climate Change and Managing the Change 3
European continent (see Chap. 1, Box 1.1). Forests provide the largest supply of
renewable biological resources not competing with food production (unlike bio-
mass from agricultural land). Moreover, combining digital technology with biology
can offer increasing opportunities for the bioeconomy in the future.
Although the concepts used in the chapter title––bioeconomy and climate
change––have attendant ambiguities, and there is a scientific discourse concerning
what they actually mean (e.g. Hulme 2009; Kleinschmit et al. 2017), these terms are
not discussed here. Rather, given the above definition of the bioeconomy, we exam-
ine its substance in the context of the forest-based sector, examining how it can be
implemented, what the outlook is, and its relationship with climate change. In turn,
we perceive climate change as global warming and its effects. We also follow the
understanding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which
has posited a human influence on climate that has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-twentieth century.
Moreover, this book highlights the forests of the European Union, although
many of the issues and implications discussed could probably be generalised to
other regions. Yet, when discussing climate change and forests, it is important to
acknowledge some key distinctions between world regions. For example, there are
major differences between tropical forests (45% of the world total in 2020), boreal
forests (27%), temperate forests (16%) and subtropical forests (11%) (Food and
Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2020), and between the institutional settings in
which these forests are located. For example, in Europe, the forests are mainly
boreal and temperate, whereas in South America, they are tropical. Moreover, in
terms of the environmental opportunities and challenges that climate change is pro-
moting, and the institutional contexts of the continents, contrasting measures may
need to be prioritised more in South America than in Europe. The crudest and sim-
plest way to illustrate this point is to look at the forest statistics from the last three
decades (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Different trends in forest development in Europe and South America, 1990–2020
Variable (unit) 1990 2000 2010 2020
European forests 1990–2020 (50 countries and territories)
Forest area (million ha) 994 1002 1014 1017
Forest area (% of land area) 44.9% 45.3% 45.8% 46.0%
Growing stock (billion m3) 104 108 113 116
Carbon stock in biomass (Gt) 45 48 51 55
Total carbon stock (Gt) 159 162 168 172
South American forests 1990–2020 (14 countries and territories)
Forest area (million ha) 974 923 870 844
Forest area (% of land area) 55.8% 52.8% 49.8% 48.3%
Growing stock (billion m3) 207 199 191 187
Carbon stock in biomass (Gt) 106 102 98 96
Total carbon stock (Gt) 162 155 148 145
Data Source: FAO (2020)
In terms of forest area (ha), Europe and South America were almost of equal size
in 1990 – Europe’s forest area was only 2% larger. From 1990 to 2020, the European
forest area grew by 2.3% and the carbon stock in the forest biomass by 18%
(Table 1.1). However, exactly the opposite trend took place in South America, where
the forest area and carbon stock have declined by 13.3% and 3.3%, respectively
(Table 1.1).1 Thus, today, the European forest area is one-fifth bigger than that of
South America. One clear implication from these statistics is that South America
should focus on reversing its deforestation trend in order to better contribute to
climate-change mitigation (among other things), whereas in Europe, the priority
might not be so much the forest area, but rather other mitigation measures, which
this book will discuss in more detail.
When discussing forests and climate change, sometimes the media, and even
some scientists, seem to forget these differences in opportunities and challenges that
distinct forests and continents are facing deforestation or declining carbon stock
may not to be the priority issue in European boreal and temperate forests. Moreover,
forests and climate change together present complex issues, and there appears to be
no silver bullet that would work in all circumstances and regions, even within
Europe (Hulme 2009; Nabuurs et al. 2017; Nikolakis and Innes 2020).
The diversity, complexity and feedback effects among the different channels
through which forest-based-sector mitigation can be increased have not always been
well understood in the discussion. Rather the media reporting, and occasionally the
scientists’ messages to policy-makers, have tended to narrow and simplify the topic
in a way that misses the holistic picture (Hetemäki 2019; Chapters 8 and 9). For
example, the links between climate mitigation and adaptation, the role of forest
disturbances, the socioeconomic context (techno-system) in which we are operat-
ing, the importance of considering both the short- and long-term impacts, and the
need to consider climate mitigation simultaneously with the other grand challenges
of humanity. The different roles of forests in climate mitigation are summarised in
Table 1.2, which gives a simplified taxonomy that lists some of the most important
features between the forest-based sector and climate mitigation.
In Table 1.2, any one of the channels through which the forest-based sector can
impact climate mitigation points to a specific action to maximise the mitigation
potential under that specific option. Thus, if for example, one was only concerned
about maximising the sequestration of carbon in forests and soils, it would make
sense to conserve forests, allowing no commercial harvests, at least in the short term
(i.e. the coming decades). On the other hand, if the substitution impact was being
emphasised, the remedy would be to increase wood production. Furthermore, if the
vulnerability of forests to disturbances and damage is also considered, the complete
conservation of forests and refraining from harvesting would not be recommended,
especially in the long term, as forest ageing increases the probability of both abiotic
damage and a number of biotic injuries to trees (see Chap. 3).
1
In Africa, forest area (ha) has declined from 1990 to 2002 by 14.3%, whilst in North and Central
America and Oceania, it has stayed basically the same, and in Asia, it has grown by 6.5%
(FAO 2020).
Table 1.2 Forest-based-sector climate-mitigation impacts and actions to strengthen these

Possible actions to increase mitigation by 2050
(action could be modified if the target was long
Mitigation channel term, e.g. beyond 2050)
Forest biophysical impacts
Forest carbon sequestration in trees and soils Stopping deforestation, increasing afforestation
(forest sink) and forest conservation. Turning global forest loss
to forest gain, and reforestation always after final
felling. Increasing tree growth, and reduce
harvests.
Forest albedo Changing coniferous forests to broadleaves or
mixed forests
Forest aerosols Afforestation and conserving forests
Forest disturbances Adapting forests to changing climate and
increasing resilience (e.g. changing tree species
and provinces). Decreasing disturbance risks via
forest management measures (e.g. increasing
mixed forests and decreasing monocultures)
Substitution and storage impacts
Substituting forest biomass for fossil raw Forest management and wood production for
materials, energy and products forest- based products. Policies to enhance
demand for forest- based products, such as wood
construction
Storing carbon in forest products Forest management and wood production for
forest- based products
Emissions from forest products value-chain
Production and logistics Reducing and eliminating the use of fossil fuels
in transport, heating and electricity generation in
forest-based industries
Socioeconomic and political impacts(feedback impacts)
Synergies or trade-offs between the Seek to maximise synergies and minimise
mitigation channel and other societal trade-offs between mitigation measures and other
objectives (e.g. leakage impacts, political societal goals
support for mitigation measures,
biodiversity impacts, income and
employment impacts)
Combination of several different channels No single policy/action can enhance all the
different mitigation channels > need a mixture of
different policy and management actions
Clearly, if all the different channels and socioeconomic and political responses
are considered simultaneously and holistically, the action may be different than for
any single option alone. The planning of mitigation actions is even more compli-
cated by the fact that, depending on the time span of the policy target, different
actions may be favoured. That is, if the target is short term (up to 2050) or long term
(beyond 2050), the actions required might be somewhat different. Indeed, the occa-
sionally different messages received from scientists on the most appropriate mea-
sures to mitigate climate change via forests may reflect them focusing on different
time spans. Moreover, one can come to well-founded but different conclusions,
depending on whether an analysis is based on looking at only one (or some) of the
many possible mitigation channels, or if it is based on a holistic approach, seeking
to synthesise the different impact channels and feedback loops. In this book, we
follow the IPCC (2019) understanding, where the forest-based sector can contribute
to climate mitigation by enhancing forest carbon stocks and sinks, storing carbon in
harvested wood products, and substituting for emissions-intensive materials and
fossil energy.
In general, this book is based on an approach that stresses the importance of tak-
ing a holistic approach to assessing how to best utilise forests to mitigate climate
change. The Climate Smart Forestry (CSF) approach has been introduced as a
means of integrating the holistic approach to increase climate mitigation via forests
and the forest sector (Nabuurs et al. 2015, 2017; Kauppi et al. 2018; Yousefpour
et al. 2018). It is based on acknowledging the diversity and complexity of the issue,
as outlined in Table 1.2. The CSF approach seeks to connect forests to bioeconom-
ics, link mitigation and adaption measures, enhance the resilience of forest resources
and ecosystem services, while at the same time, seek to meet the other societal chal-
lenges (employment, income, biodiversity, etc.). CSF has been introduced in the
European context (see references cited above), but the approach is of global rele-
vance. CSF builds on the concepts of sustainable forest management, with a strong
focus on climate and ecosystem services. It builds on three mutually reinforcing
components:
• increasing carbon storage in forests in conjunction with other ecosystem services;
• enhancing health and resilience through adaptive forest management; and
• using wood resources sustainably to substitute for non-renewable, carbon-
intensive materials.
CSF aims to incorporate a mix of these measures by developing spatially diverse
forest management strategies that acknowledge all carbon pools simultaneously to
provide longer-term and greater mitigation benefits, while supporting other ecosys-
tem services. Such strategies should combine measures to maintain or increase car-
bon stocks in forest ecosystems and wood products, and maximise substitution
benefits, while taking regional conditions into account.
1.2 What Are the Future Challenges and Opportunities?
The fact that humanity and forests are not facing only one challenge at a time, but
several simultaneous environmental, societal and economic problems, points to
there being no simple answers. Just think, for example, about the need to increase
climate mitigation efforts, biodiversity, and employment and income opportunities
for the growing population and middle class. Moreover, depending on the country
or region and its particular circumstances, the needs may have a somewhat different
emphasis, and the opportunities to fulfil these may also be different. Therefore, it
would be unrealistic to assume that there can be a simple answer to all the needs and
local opportunities. This situation is also reflected in the CSF approach, which
should be tailored to local conditions (Nabuurs et al. 2017). The optimal measures
taken under the CSF approach in forests and the forest- based sector can vary even
among different parts of a country. This book seeks to clarify the different options
under CSF, and why some measures might be preferred to others, depending on the
regional specificities (Chap. 10).
It is also evident that there can be synergies and trade-offs between the many
ecosystem services forest generate, or between the environmental, economic and
social objectives that society demands from forests. We argue that the objective of
bioeconomy strategies and policies should be to maximise the potential synergies
and minimise the trade-offs between the bioeconomy, biodiversity and climate miti-
gation. Hetemäki et al. (2017) illustrated the role of synergies and trade-offs (see
Fig. 1.1; see also Biber et al. 2020; Krumm et al. 2020).
In economic terms, the green curves show a forest bioeconomic production-
possibility frontier, when there is a trade-off between the outputs that forests can
provide. The frontier describes all output combinations when outputs are produced
efficiently. It is, of course, possible that society is operating inefficiently and would
be located below the production possibility frontier.
The vertical axis in Fig. 1.1. describes non-product forest services (biodiversity,
carbon sink, water quality, recreation, tourism, etc.), whilst the horizontal axis rep-
resents forest products (pulp, sawnwood, bioenergy, etc.). The Fig. 1.1 illustrates a
bioeconomy that can use forest resources to produce both material forest products
and non- product services at the same time, and can choose between alternative
combinations of each production type. The green curves––the so-called
Fig. 1.1 Illustration of a forest-based, bioeconomic production-possibility frontier, with trade-offs

and synergies between forest products and non-product forest services
production-possibility frontiers––indicate the maximal combination of outputs (e.g.

biodiversity and pulp) for a given amount of inputs (forest, capital, labour). The
location of the frontier is determined by technological constraints and resource
availability. By picking any point on the green line, the respective amounts of forest
products and non-product services can be read from the axes.
As Fig. 1.1 suggests, the more intensively forests are used for forest products, the
less societies can produce services such as biodiversity, and vice versa. The chal-
lenge for society is to find a sustainable combination of both. The role of synergies
is important, because they can move the frontier outwards, and in this way alleviate
the trade-offs. In Fig. 1.1, the frontier may move outwards in two ways––either via
more from more, or more from less. In both cases, more forest products and non-
product services are produced. This results in more sustainable forestry, irrespective
of whether the society values more forest products or non-product forest services,
ceteris paribus. The outward movement of the frontier is, in principle, possible via
three pathways:
• technological change (innovation) and learning-by-doing (e.g. better manage-
ment experience);
• increased resource efficiency with given production inputs (e.g. more forest
growth, capital and/or labour productivity); and
• a combination of these two.
Evidence seems to support that outward movement of the frontier is possible. For
example, Bieber et al.’s (2020) European case studies indicated a considerable range
of forest management options that would not automatically cause trade-offs between
wood production, biodiversity and carbon sequestration, also showing options for
building synergies between these. However, the new production-possibility frontier
would usually not be possible in the short term, especially with forest management
taking time to implement and produce changes. However, in the longer term, when
technology and innovations are introduced, or higher productivity, movement is
possible. Innovations and technological progress (including better institutions and
management) are key to producing more from existing resources.
Figure 1.1 illustrates that the bioeconomy can be advanced in different ways, and
therefore it would be optimal to provide policy incentives that help to minimise the
trade-offs and maximise the synergies between different components of the bioecon-
omy. By increasing the profitability of forest management, and possibly forest areas,
a well-promoted bioeconomy could enhance the possibilities of taking care of bio-
diversity. But the opposite is important as well. Successful adaptation to climate
change and extreme weather conditions (increasing forest fires, storms, pests and
other hazards) is imperative to provide a basis for the bioeconomy.
So, a key question for bioeconomics is, how can the synergies be made stronger
and trade-offs reduced using policies and different measures in forests and the forest
sector? In this book, we examine this question, seeking to provide some general
answers. We also show that this may mean different actions in disparate regions and
under contrasting circumstances.
Finally, the above approach also requires the need to abolish the conventional
and still-dominant thinking in which the economy (e.g. wood production) and the
environment (e.g. biodiversity) are seen as necessarily and fundamentally opposed
to each other. Certainly, there are plenty of cases in the past in which this has been
true, as it can be in the future. However, it would be much more fruitful to start to
find ways to embrace the synergies than could exist between the economy and the
environment. In this book, we argue that the circular bioeconomy, and more specifi-
cally CSF, can be an approach for enhancing these synergies and minimising trade-
offs in the forest- based sector.
1.3 Outline of the Book
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive book to examine the
forest bioeconomy and its connection to climate mitigation and adaptation in the
EU forests and forest-based sector. It also describes how the CSF approach is a use-
ful tool for combining bioeconomics and climate mitigation. The CSF approach is
illustrated using countries that differ in terms of their forest sectors as case studies.
The focus is on the EU context, but the principles of the approach may be tailored
to other regions.
The analysis in the book is based significantly on the results of an interdisciplin-
ary research consortium project funded by the Strategic Research Council of the
Academy of Finland, Sustainable, climate-neutral and resource- efficient forest-
based bioeconomy (FORBIO) that was carried out in 2015–2021. Needless to say,
not all the wisdom on the topic presented in this book lies in the findings of one
research project. To try and address this shortcoming, the analyses in the book also
refer to the international scientific literature and syntheses of this, such as the IPCC
assessment reports. Authors outside the FORBIO project have also contributed to
the analyses.
In terms of forest and climate mitigation analysis and discussion, this book
endeavours to show the complexity and diversity of the ways in which that can take
place, linking these to other demands placed on forests by society. It describes the
individual mitigation channels in detail in the different chapters. However, in those
chapters discussing the implications of policy and forest management measures, the
perspective is typically holistic. That is, for policy and forest management mea-
sures, it is necessary to consider the implications of all the individual mitigation
channels at the same time, and find an optimal balance between these actions, which
individually may even point to opposing measures. In summary, all the different
mitigation channels shown in Table 1.2 and the societal context should be kept
in mind.
Box 1.1 Forest Bioeconomy in the EU

Antti Mutanen and Jari Viitanen
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Joensuu, Finland
The EU’s updated Bioeconomy Strategy promotes bioeconomy as a means of
tackling global challenges, such as climate change, ecosystem degradation and
the unsustainable consumption of natural resources, while simultaneously sup-
porting the modernisation of European industries and strengthening Europe’s
competitiveness in global markets (European Commission [EC] 2018). The
objectives of the updated Bioeconomy Strategy (ensuring wood security, man-
aging natural resources sustainably, reducing dependency on non-renewable
resources, mitigating and adapting to climate change, strengthening European
competitiveness and creating jobs) are the same as in the original Bioeconomy
Strategy of 2012. However, in the updated strategy, the concepts of sustainabil-
ity and circularity are emphasised as being at the core of the bioeconomy, and
are integral prerequisites for the acceptability and future success of the bio-
economy. In fact, while recognising the need for recycling and waste streams as
an alternative source of biomass, the original Bioeconomy Strategy did not
address circularity or circular economy explicitly (EC 2012).
Despite the emphasis on the ecological dimension of sustainability, the
updated Bioeconomy Strategy identifies competitiveness and job creation,
representing economic sustainability, as key drivers of bioeconomy. By 2030,
the strategy envisages the creation of one million new jobs in bio-based indus-
tries (EC 2018). These jobs would emerge in rural and coastal areas especially.
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) publishes bioeconomy statistics for the
whole EU and its individual member states. These statistics are based on the
data collected in the European Statistical System (ESS). The ESS employs the
NACE Rev. 2 classification in its collection of data on economic activity from
different fields of the economy. The development of the NACE classification
began in the 1970s, and this division of the economy into different industries
and sectors is well established, reflecting the traditional way of classifying a
multitude of economic activities for the needs of sectoral policymaking.
However, the bioeconomy crosses the boundaries of traditional sectors, and
the statistics based on the standard classification are inadequate to provide a
comprehensive picture of the scale and trends of the bioeconomy. Thus, in the
JRC’s bioeconomy statistics, some of the NACE Rev. 2 sectors, such as agri-
culture, fisheries, food, forestry, wood products, and pulp and paper produc-
tion, are included entirely in the bioeconomy, while only the bio-based share
of other sectors, such as the chemical, biotechnological and energy industries,
is included (for more details, see Ronzon et al. 2017).
(continued)
Box 1.1 (continued)

According to the JRC’s statistics, the bioeconomy created €614 billion value
added and employed 17.5 million people in the EU27 in 2017 (JRC DataM 2021).
The bioeconomy’s contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) was, on
average, 4.7% across all the EU27 member states, but the variation between the
member states was substantial (Fig. Box 1.1). In Lithuania, the contribution of the
bioeconomy to the national GDP was the highest, at 8.1%, whereas in Luxemburg,
it was the lowest at 0.8%. Even greater variation between the member states can
be detected in the bioeconomy’s contribution to employment. On average, the
number of employees in the bioeconomy was 8.9% of the total number of employ-
ees across all sectors in the EU27, while the share was the highest, at 27.8%, in
Romania, and the lowest, at 3.5%, in Luxemburg. Geographically, the bioecono-
my’s role in the national economies tends to be higher than average in the Eastern
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 %
EU27
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Bioeconomy's share of GDP Bioeconomy's share of employees
Fig. Box 1.1 The bioeconomy’s share of GDP and number of employees in the EU27 in
2017. (Sources: JRC DataM 2021 and Eurostat 2021)
(continued)
Box 1.1 (continued)

European countries, where the agricultural sector is large compared to other sec-
tors, especially in terms of people employed.
By sub-sector, the EU’s bioeconomy is dominated by agriculture and the
food industry. Agriculture accounted for 53% of employment and 31% of
value added in the EU27 bioeconomy in 2017, while the corresponding fig-
ures for the food industry and the production of beverages and tobacco were
25 and 35% (Fig. Box 1.2). At the same time, the forest bioeconomy, includ-
ing forestry, wood products, furniture, and the pulp and paper industries, gen-
erated 19% of the total value added and employed 2.5 million people – that is,
14% of the total number of employees in the EU27 bioeconomy. The impor-
tance of the forest bioeconomy varies greatly between the member states. In
Austria, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia, the role of
the forest bioeconomy is especially pronounced, generating more than 30%
value added in the national bioeconomy (Fig. Box 1.3).
In the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, the potential of the forest bioeconomy is
recognised as a source of raw materials that could replace fossil materials in
the construction, packaging, furniture, textile and chemical industries.
Emphasis is also placed on new business models based on the ecosystem ser-
vices provided by forests, such as carbon storage and sequestration, water
regulation and business opportunities in nature tourism. However, the possi-
bility of increasing harvesting volumes, even without exceeding the annual
increment, is treated with caution, since trade-offs between the use of woody
biomass and other ecosystem services are considered significant and have to
be analysed carefully.
Fig. Box 1.2 Shares of employment and value added by sub-sector in the EU27 bioecon-
omy in 2017. (Source: JRC DataM 2021)
(continued)
Box 1.1 (continued)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 %
EU27
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Value added Number of people employed
Fig. Box 1.3 The forest bioeconomy share of value added and employment in the EU27 in
2017. The forest bioeconomy covers forestry, the manufacture of wood products and
wooden furniture, and of pulp and paper. (Source: JRC DataM 2021)
The definition of bioeconomy and its boundaries in relation to traditional

industries and classification framework are not unambiguous, and the JRC’s
database is only one source of bioeconomy statistics. For example, Natural
Resources Institute Finland (Luke) has recently started publishing Finnish
bioeconomy statistics, according to which the share of value added created by
bioeconomy was 12.2% of the Finnish GDP in 2017, a figure almost twice as
high as the estimate provided by JRC (Fig. 1.1). The discrepancy between
Luke’s and JRC’s figures is solely due to the differences in the industries and
the proportions of industries included in the bioeconomy. Kuosmanen et al.
(2020) studied the relevant industries to be included in the bioeconomy at EU
level and proposed a method of determining the size of bioeconomy which
combines both the input- and output-based approaches in contrast to the
(continued)
Box 1.1 (continued)

purely output-based approach employed by the JRC and Luke. The analysis
emphasized the importance of bio-based services, i.e. tertiary sector, such as
construction sector, restaurants, and transportation of bio-based goods.
According to Kuosmanen et al. (2020), the value added of bioeconomy in the
EU28 was EUR 1,460.6 billion or 11% of the GDP in 2015. Robert et al.
(2020) studied wood-based bioeconomy in the EU28, and the results stressed
the importance of secondary processing, such as wood-based construction,
Mt CO2 eq.
100
0 Cropland
Settlements
-100 Wetlands
Grassland
-200 Other
Harvested wood products
LULUCF (total)
-300
Forest land
-400
-500
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Fig. Box 1.4 GHG net emissions (+) and removals (−) from the LULUCF sector and its
sub-sectors in the EU27 in 2000–2018. The ‘Other’ category includes the following sectors:
other land; other land use; land-use change; forestry; and indirect N20 emissions from man-
aged soils. (Source: EEA 2021)
Mm3
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Industrial roundwood Wood fuel
Fig. Box 1.5 Production volumes (overbark) of industrial roundwood and wood fuel in the
EU27 in 2000–2019. Underbark figures were converted to overbark using the coefficient
1/0.88 (FAO, International Tropical Timber Organization [ITTO] and UN 2020). (Source:
FAO 2021)
(continued)
Box 1.1 (continued)

printing, and wood-based energy production, in the creation of jobs, and the
total number of people employed in the wood-based bioeconomy was 4.5 mil-
lion in 2018. Obviously, there is a need for developing the statistics to provide
the decision makers with comprehensive and consistent data on the scope and
trends of bioeconomy.
The role of forests in combating climate change has been recognised rela-
tively recently. Forest land and harvested wood products (HWPs) form the
most important sink for greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the EU27. In 2018, the
GHG net removal from forest land and the HWP sectors was −389 million
tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which corresponded to roughly 10% of the net
emissions from all the sectors, excluding the land use, land use change and
forestry (LULUCF) sector. The role of forests in achieving the goals of the
Paris Agreement is also recognised in the LULUCF regulation ([EU]
2018/841), which aims to maintain and strengthen the forest sinks in the long
term in order to reach the goal of balancing GHG emissions and removals in
the second half of this century.
Until the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the GHG net removal (i.e. the carbon
sink) of forest land fluctuated yearly in the EU27, but overall, the level of the
forest sink was quite stable. After a temporary strengthening, the forest sink
started to decline after 2013, however (Fig. Box 1.4). This decline is attributable
to the age structure of the European forests, with the forests ageing and harvest-
ing volumes increasing. The total volume of roundwood removals have been
growing relatively steadily since 2009, while simultaneously, the share of wood
fuel from total removals has increased slightly (Fig. Box 1.5). From the early
2000s up to the financial crisis, the share of wood fuel was one fifth of the total
removal, whereas in the 2010s, the share was roughly a quarter. The increased
production of wood fuel, as well as other short-lived wood-based products, such
as pulp for paper and paperboard, is reflected in the GHG sink of HWPs that has
not increased in parallel with the total roundwood removal volumes. In fact, the
manufacture of long-lived wood products (i.e. sawnwood and panels) has only
recently reached the pre-2009 level.
In forest-rich countries where the forest bioeconomy has more than a mar-
ginal role in the national economy, such as in Finland and Sweden, the national
bioeconomy and forest strategies are aimed at increasing the use of woody
biomass to reach the maximum sustainable volumes, alongside the nature
conservation and biodiversity targets of the forests. At the European level,
where the forest bioeconomy plays a minor role compared to agriculture and
food manufacturing, the aims of the forest-rich countries are perhaps not fully
understood. However, the recent forest damage due to storms and bark-beetle
outbreaks in Central Europe, as well as the forest fires in the Mediterranean
countries, Australia, Russia, California and Canada, have increased the gen-
eral level of knowledge and understanding of the positive effects of active,
sustainable forest management combined with a competitive, vibrant wood-
processing industry in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
References
Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J et al (2020) Forest biodi-

versity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for
ten Forest landscapes across Europe. Front Ecol Evol 8:e547696. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fevo.2020.547696
D’Amato D, Droste N, Allen B, Kettunen M, Lähtinen K, Korhonen J et al (2017) Green, circular,
bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J Clean Prod 168:716–734.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
EEA (2021) Air emissions inventories. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.
do?dataset=env_air_gge&lang=en. Accessed 29 Apr 2021
European Commission (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. https://
op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f0d8515-8dc0-4435-ba53-9570e47dbd51.
Accessed 9 Feb 2020
European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the
connection between economy, society and the environment. Updated Bioeconomy
Strategy. https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_strategy_2018.
pdf#view=fit&pagemode=n one. Accessed 11 Feb 2020
European Environment Agency (2018) The circular economy and the bioeconomy. Partners in
sustainability. EEA Report No. 8. ISSN 1977–844. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
circular-economy-and-bioeconomy. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Eurostat (2021) GDP and its main components (output, expenditure and income). https://appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_gdp&lang=en. Accessed 3 May 2021
FAO (2021) FAOSTAT. Forest product statistics. Forestry production and trade. http://www.fao.
org/faostat/en/#data/FO. Accessed 30 Apr 2021
FAO (UN Food and Agricultural Organization) (2020) Global forest resource assessment. https://
fra-data.fao.org/. Accessed 5 Jan 2021
FAO, ITTO, UN (2020) Forest product conversion factors. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/
ca7952en. Accessed 30 Apr 2021
Helm D (2015) Natural capital: valuing the planet. Yale University Press, Yale
Hetemäki L (2019) The role of science in Forest policy – experiences by EFI. For Policy Econ
105:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.014
Hetemäki L, Hanewinkel M, Muys B, Ollikainen M, Palahí M, Trasobares A (2017) Leading the
way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. From science to policy 5. European Forest
Institute https://doi.org/10.36333/fs05
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inac-
tion and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511841200
IPCC (2019) Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, 184 desertifica-
tion, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and 185 greenhouse gas
fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
JRC DataM (2021) Data portal of agro-economic research – DataM. https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.
eu/datam/public/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed 30 Apr 2021
Kauppi P, Hanewinkel M, Lundmark L, Nabuurs GJ, Peltola H, Trasobares A, Hetemäki L (2018)
Climate smart forestry in Europe. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/publications-bank/
climate-smart-forestry-europe
Kleinschmit D, Arts B, Giurca A, Mustalahti I, Sergent A, Pulzl H (2017) Environmental
concerns in political bioeconomy discourses. Int For Rev Suppl 1. https://doi.
org/10.1505/146554817822407420
Krumm F, Schuck A, Rigling A (eds) (2020) How to balance forestry and biodiversity conserva-
tion. A view across Europe 10.16904/envidat.196
Kuosmanen T, Kuosmanen N, El-Meligli A, Ronzon T, Gurria P, Iost S, M’Barek R (2020) How big
is the bioeconomy? Reflections from an economic perspective. EUR 30167 EN, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/

bitstream/JRC120324/how-big-is-the-economy.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2020
Nabuurs GJ, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi
A (2015) A new role for forests and the forest sector in the EU post-2020 climate targets. From
science to policy 2. European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs02
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M (2017) By 2050 the
mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate smart forestry. Forests
8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Nikolakis W, Innes J (eds) (2020) The wicked problem of Forest policy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9781108471404. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684439
Palahí M, Pantsar M, Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Potočnik J, Stuchtey M, … Bas L (2020) Investing
in nature as the true engine of our economy: a 10-point action plan for a circular bioeconomy of
wellbeing. Knowledge to action 02. European Forest Institute https://doi.org/10.36333/k2a02
Regulation (EU) (2018/841) Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change
and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU) No
525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0841&from=EN. Accessed 11 Feb 2020
Robert N, Jonsson R, Chudy R, Camia A (2020) The EU bioeconomy: supporting an employment
shift downstream in the wood-based value chains? Sustainability 2020(12):758. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12030758. Accessed 2 May 2021
Ronzon T, Piotrowski S, M’Barek R, Carus M (2017) A systematic approach to understanding and
quantifying the EU’s bioeconomy. Bio-Based Appl Econ 6(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.13128/
BAE-20567
Yousefpour R, Augustynczik ALD, Reyer C, Lasch P, Suckow F, Hanewinkel M (2018) Realizing
mitigation efficiency of European commercial forests by climate smart forestry. Sci Rep 8:345.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18778-w
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Planetary Boundaries and the Role
of the Forest-Based Sector
Lauri Hetemäki and Jyri Seppälä
Abstract ‘Planetary boundaries’ is a concept that has been introduced by Earth

system scientists to refer particularly to anthropogenic pressures on the Earth sys-
tem that have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no
longer be excluded. In the planetary boundaries discussion, climate change plays a
central role due to its overarching impacts on all the other planetary boundaries. For
example, climate change critically impacts biodiversity and land-use changes.
Consequently, climate change shapes policies, strategies and actions at the global,
continental, national, regional and individual levels. The main policy through which
the EU is seeking to address climate change and direct the region to live within the
planetary boundaries is the European Green Deal (EGD), launched in 2019. The
EGD clearly acknowledges the role forests can play in sinking carbon and suggests
measures to enhance forest restoration and conservation. However, it falls short of
recognising the role that the forest-based bioeconomy can also play in achieving the
EGD objectives. History shows that European forests can simultaneously increase
the carbon sink, biodiversity and wood production.
Keywords Planetray boundaries · Environment · Climate change · Green deal ·

Forest bioeconomy
2.1 The Period of Wakening to Planetary Boundaries
Humans have a tendency to see the times they are living in as periods of exceptional
change, something that is historically very different from the past. Globalisation and
the spread of the Internet at the turn of the century, and the financial crises of
L. Hetemäki (*)
J. Seppälä
Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

20 L. Hetemäki and J. Seppälä
2008–2010 are two such recent examples. In hindsight, these events changed many
things significantly, and indeed could perhaps be seen as creating exceptional times.
Currently, we seem to be facing yet another major periodic structural change, one
that seems to be even more significant than the two we have already experienced in
this century. Here, we identify this as the ‘period of wakening to planetary boundar-
ies’. This period has its roots in scientists’ warnings, and is manifesting itself in
increasing societal awareness of environmental concerns, and new international and
national policy agendas directed at these. Time will tell how significant this period
turns out to be, but currently the expectation is that it will lead to systemic changes
in society, rather than only some fine-tuning. Here, we explain in more detail what
we mean by this, and how it relates to the theme of this book.
‘Planetary boundaries’ is a concept that has been introduced by Earth system
scientists (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015; Otto et al. 2020). It refers to
anthropogenic pressures on the Earth system that have reached a scale where abrupt
global environmental change can no longer be excluded (Rockström et al. 2009).
Accordingly, Rockström et al. (2009) proposed a new approach to global sustain-
ability that defines planetary boundaries within which humanity can expect to oper-
ate safely. They identified nine planetary boundaries, including climate change and
biodiversity, and argue that transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be
even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear,
abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems
(Rockström et al. 2009). Moreover, according to Otto et al. (2020), technological
progress and policy implementations are required to deliver emissions reductions at
rates sufficiently fast to avoid crossing dangerous tipping points in the Earth’s cli-
mate. Scientists and experts are also making suggestions for policy actions to avoid
the tipping points. Palahí et al. (2020b) developed a 10-point action plan on how to
respond to these challenges. The forest-based sector is understood to have an impor-
tant role in helping to contribute to the solutions (Hetemäki et al. 2017; Palahí et al.
2020a, b).
This type of rhetoric concerning tipping-points and warnings is reminiscent of
the ‘limits-to-growth’ debate of the 1970s. However, the limits-to-growth discus-
sion emphasised the quantity of growth and the limits to the quantity of natural
resources, whereas the planetary-boundaries discussion places emphasis on the
quality of growth and the environmentally sustainable use of natural resources, as
well as the need for circular economies and the mitigation of climate change, which
were not major issues in the 1970s.
Nevertheless, it is evident that, globally, there has been a new type of awakening
to environmental sustainability. People have reacted with heightened readiness,
voiced their worries and taken action on climate change and biodiversity issues. In
particular, the younger generations have become very active on these issues, and
have managed to capture media attention and spread greater societal awareness,
including to, it seems, politicians. This is evidenced by, for example, Greta
Thunberg’s school strike for climate action movement and the attention it created
globally. The ‘biodiversity crisis’ that has loomed for a long time in the shadows of
climate change discussions has recently been brought to a new level of societal
awareness with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Scientists have pointed out how
2 Planetary Boundaries and the Role of the Forest-Based Sector 21
these types of zoonotic diseases are linked to biodiversity, and why biodiversity loss
is likely to make zoonotic diseases more frequent (Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2020).
Politicians are being awakened to a new degree of seriousness and urgency on
climate and biodiversity issues. Of course, these are not new to the political agenda;
for example, the Kyoto Protocol international climate treaty was adopted over two
decades ago, in 1997, and similarly, the Rio Conference in 1992 established the
Convention on Biological Diversity. However, the last 30 years have witnessed
insufficient, or even no, action to seriously change economic and societal structures
to be in line with the goals of previous agreements. This has itself worsened sustain-
ability development and made the rationale for the agreements even more urgent
and important than three decades ago. Also, the scientific evidence pointing to the
serious risks of transgressing the planetary boundaries has become stronger and
broader. The bulk of the voting population, at least in the EU, is also starting to be
increasingly concerned about the negative impacts of climate change in their every-
day lives and to worry about the future. These changes have finally led also politi-
cians to understand the importance of the issue and having a sense of urgency to act.
Moreover, the majority of politicians are no longer talking about the need to fine-
tune our economies and societies gradually to tackle these issues, but are increas-
ingly calling for systemic and urgent changes (e.g. the European Green Deal [EGD]).
The ‘period of wakening to planetary boundaries’ can be seen in the Paris
Climate Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals, which the world’s states
agreed to in 2018. Since then, these agreements have been beacons for national and
regional strategies and policies, more or less everywhere around the globe. However,
as one would expect, there has been variation in how strongly these agreements
have been realised in new policy measures. For example, the USA pulled out of the
Paris Agreement during ex-President Trump’s period in office (although the USA
rejoined at the start of President Biden’s term), whereas the EU aims to implement
the main goals via its EGD programme, launched in December 2019. In general, the
trend of viewing the environment as a major priority in political agendas appears to
be becoming stronger in an increasing number of world regions, and day-by-day.
One of the latest examples is President Xi Jinping’s announcement at the UN
General Assembly in 2020 that China’s emissions will peak before 2030 and they
will strive to reach carbon neutrality before 2060. Whether these goals will be
achieved is still to be seen, but nevertheless, the political goal is set.
2.2 Climate Change as the Deciding Phenomenon
In the planetary-boundaries discussion, climate change plays a central role due to its
overarching impacts on all the other (eight) planetary boundaries. For example, cli-
mate change critically impacts biodiversity and land-use changes. Due to the drastic
consequences of climate change, there is no question that it will be the deciding
phenomenon of our times. It is shaping policies, strategies and actions at the global,
continental, national, regional and individual levels.
Moreover, the science fundamentals clearly indicate that greenhouse gases

(GHGs) caused by humans have been the dominant influence on the climate system
at least since the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC 2018) concluded that human-induced warming has exceeded 1 °C above pre-
industrial levels, and is continuing to increase at a rate of 0.2 °C per decade. Human-
induced warming will exceed 1.5 °C around 2040, if this rate of increase continues.
To avoid this development, 190 countries signed the Paris Agreement (United
Nations [UN] 2020). This sets out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate
change by limiting global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit
it to 1.5 °C. Although nearly all the countries have ratified the Paris Agreement, the
curtailing of global greenhouse emissions has not proceeded so far according to
pathways that align with the Paris goal (International Energy Agency 2020a, b).
Despite scientific consensus about the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions on
climate change, there is uncertainty in the climate response to emissions of GHGs.
It is only possible to provide probabilities of the impacts of different emissions
pathways on climate warming up to a certain point (e.g. below 2 °C). In emissions
pathway scenarios, the reduction of long-lived CO2 emissions is the priority because
cumulative CO2 emissions are the main determinant of future warming. Nitrous
oxide and fluorinated gases are also long-lived GHG emissions, but their absolute
global warming impacts are much lower compared to CO2 due to their emissions
being magnitudes smaller. Short-lived GHGs, such as methane, affect the climate in
different ways compared to long-lived GHG emissions. The constant rates of their
emissions do not lead to increasing warming, whereas CO2 emissions do. Despite
their differences, the various GHG emissions are typically aggregated as ‘carbon
dioxide equivalence’, describing their 100-year time-horizon warming impact rela-
tive to CO2.
Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.1 °C of global
warming above pre-industrial levels, and the six warmest years on record have taken
place since 2014 (NASA 2020). The ocean has absorbed much of the increased heat,
with the top 100 m warming by more than 0.33 °C since 1969 (von Schuckmann
et al. 2020). Warmer waters, and melting water from ice-sheet mass loss in Greenland
and Antarctica, have increased ocean sea levels (Velicogna et al. 2020). The global
sea level rose about 20 cm in the last century. However, the rate in the last two
decades is nearly double that of the last century, and is accelerating slightly every
year (Nerem et al. 2018). It is estimated that the sea level will rise by 30–240 cm by
2100, depending on developments in lowering global GHG emissions in the future
(IPCC 2019). Global climate change has already had many observable effects on the
environment: glaciers have shrunk, the ice cover over the Arctic Ocean has
decreased, the frost-free season (and growing season) in the north has lengthened,
changes in precipitation patterns, and more extreme meteorological events, such as
hurricanes, storms, droughts, floods and heat waves, have been detected in different
parts of the world (NASA 2020).
According to the IPCC (2018), the extent of the effects of climate change on
individual regions will vary over time and according the ability of different societal
and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to the change. Almost all coastal
cities of any size, and all small, developing island states, are becoming increasingly
vulnerable to rising sea levels (UN 2019). In particular, developing countries will
suffer from more frequent and extreme weather events caused by climate change,
and they will have more problems with food security and water scarcity in the
future. In addition to the harmful effects on human systems, including human health,
climate change will cause negative impacts on natural systems––air, biological
diversity, freshwater, oceans and land––which will alter the complex interactions
between the human and natural systems (UN 2019). For this reason, the key mes-
sage of the IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming by 1.5 °C was that
the harmful effects of climate change will increase so rapidly between the targets of
1.5 and 2.5 °C that it is imperative to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.
In order to stop global temperatures increasing, global emissions of CO2 gases
must be cut to near net-zero by around the middle of this century in most 1.5 °C
scenarios, and around 2075 for ‘well below’ 2 °C scenarios. In addition, net-zero
GHG emissions in these scenarios must be typically reached around 15 years later
than reaching net-zero CO2 emissions. Both net-zero situations would require the
large-scale net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere because all anthropogenic CO2
emissions, and especially non-CO2 emissions, may not be stopped in the future. The
removal of CO2 can be implemented, for example, with the help of afforestation and
carbon- removal technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.
Chapter 3 contains a more-detailed discussion of the recent IPCC projections for
global climate change. There is also an analysis on what this could mean, especially
to boreal forests. However, next we turn to examining how the EU policy frame-
work––the EGD––addresses the forest-based sector in climate mitigation.
2.3 The European Green Deal and the Forest-Based Sector
The EU aims to implement the main goals of the Paris Agreement via the EGD:
“…a new growth strategy that aims to transform the EU into a fair and prosperous
society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are
no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decou-
pled from resource use. It also aims to protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natu-
ral capital, and protect the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related
risks and impacts (European Commission [EC] 2019)”. In essence, climate change
mitigation and biodiversity will be at the centre of EU policies in the years to come.
The EGD policy document is, in many ways, a landmark, representing a new
way of thinking in the EC. It is aimed at being a cross-sectoral policy outline that
will have an effect on all legislative processes of the EC in 2020–2024. The political
importance of the EGD is also evident in the requirement that “All EU actions and
policies will have to contribute to the European Green Deal objectives” (EC 2019,
p. 3). This includes many EU forest-sector-related areas, such as climate policy,
biodiversity policy, energy policy, forest strategy, industrial policy, etc. The imple-
mentation of the strategies and polices proposed in the EGD will have significant
implications for the EU forest sector in the coming decade. The EGD introduces a
new political narrative and direction by setting a clear focus on climate, sustainabil-
ity and biodiversity conservation across all policy areas. The EGD acknowledges
the need for a systemic transformation, not only piecemeal policy changes, to
achieve the goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement, Sustainable Development
Goals and Convention on Biological Diversity.
The main goal of the EGD is for the EU to become the world’s first climate-
neutral continent. To reach this goal, European GHG emissions and sinks should be
equal in 2050. In addition to the fossil- and process-based GHG emissions included
in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the EU’s Effort Sharing
Decision (non-ETS), land-based emissions and sinks that occur in the land-use,
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector are being considered as new ele-
ments for EU climate policy. The so-called ‘no-debit rule’––a principle applied in
EU law for the first time for 2021–2030––requires that GHG emissions from the
LULUCF sector are compensated for by an equivalent absorption of CO2 made pos-
sible by additional action in this sector (EU 2018). The absorption can be effected
through carbon sinks in agricultural soils and, especially, forest-related sinks. Thus,
the actions of forest owners and farmers to secure carbon stored in forests and soils
will contribute to achieving the EU’s climate-neutral target by 2050.
The EGD clearly acknowledges many of the potential problems relating to for-
ests. Most of its statements regarding forests express problems such deforestation
and threats to forests and biodiversity, and argue for forest and biodiversity restora-
tion and protection. With respect to climate action, forests are mainly viewed as
carbon sinks. There are hardly any statements on the multiple benefits forests pro-
vide to society, or the benefits that forest-based bioindustry could contribute to a
more sustainable and climate-neutral society and to the Sustainable Development
Goals. Indeed, Palahí et al. (2020a, b) argued that the bioeconomy is the missing
link in the EGD, stating that “The bioeconomy, a circular economy based on renew-
able biological resources and sustainable biobased solutions, could certainly con-
tribute to the Green Deal delivery and would deserve more attention. The bioeconomy
can be a catalyst for systemic change to tackle holistically the social, economic and
environmental aspects currently not yet enough coherently addressed”. A sustain-
ably managed forest bioeconomy–– sustainability not just assumed, but imposed
and monitored––could deliver the following EGD objectives.
First, moving towards a carbon-neutral EU requires not only moving towards
fossil-free energy, but also to fossil-free materials. This means replacing carbon-
intense products, such as plastics, concrete, steel and synthetic textiles. This is not
only for climate change mitigation, but also because of other positive environmental
impacts. The transformation called for in the EGD is simply not possible without
using a new range of renewable biobased materials that can replace and environ-
mentally outperform carbon-intense materials. This shift also provides an opportu-
nity for modernisation and making industries more circular. Forest resources, if
managed sustainably, are circular by nature and often easy to remanufacture. The
EGD identifies several sectors, such as chemicals, textiles, plastics and construc-
tion, which will need new conceptual business models and innovations to become
circular and low-carbon industries. The emerging bioeconomy could be a catalyst

for this. Wood––the most versatile biological material on Earth––can be trans-
formed into nanocellulose, which is five times stronger and lighter than steel. The
first car made of nanocellulose was unveiled in 2019 in Japan. A new generation of
sustainable and circular wood-based textiles, with much lower carbon footprints
than fossil fibres like polyester, is now possible too (Hurmekoski et al. 2018).
Engineered-wood products, such as cross-laminated timber elements and modules,
are the most effective way to reduce the carbon footprint in cities and the construc-
tion sector, both of which are currently dominated by carbon- and resource-intense
materials––concrete and steel.
Second, the bioeconomy offers an opportunity to address the past failure of the
economy to value nature and biodiversity. This is because a sustainable bioecon-
omy needs to place nature and life at the centre of the economy. Biological diversity
determines the capacity of biological resources to adapt and evolve in a changing
environment. Biodiversity is therefore a prerequisite for a long-term, sustainable
and resilient bioeconomy. On the other hand, a sustainable bioeconomy is necessary
in the long term to protect biodiversity, as new biobased solutions to replace fossil
products are crucial in mitigating climate change, biodiversity’s main threat.
Moreover, forest management, such as promoting more resilient mixed forests or
addressing natural disturbances, can simultaneously benefit biodiversity and the
bioeconomy (Biber et al. 2020; Díaz-Yáñez et al. 2020; Krumm et al. 2020). Third,
it is important to acknowledge that it is unlikely that actions to protect or enhance
biodiversity can be funded by public money only. Forest owners and forest indus-
tries, generating enough income from a profitable bioeconomy, would be in a better
position to reinvest in biodiversity and natural capital, in line with the aims of the
EGD of preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity.
Finally, the bioeconomy offers unique opportunities for inclusive prosperity and
fair social transition. This is paradoxically related to one of the potential disadvan-
tages of the bioeconomy compared to the fossil-based economy––a more complex
ownership, mobilisation and processing of biological resources. Biological
resources like forest resources are usually owned by many more people and entities,
they are located in diverse rural areas, their costs are often higher, and transporting
and processing biomass tends to be more costly and complex compared to fossil
resources, such as coal and oil. However, these limitations are, at the same time, a
great advantage, as they offer the possibility of a more-inclusive distribution of
income, jobs, infrastructure and prosperity in many regions of the EU, especially in
rural areas, in line with the EGD’s inclusive growth ambitions. For instance, forests
cover more than 40% of the EU land surface, and the forest-based sector provides
3.5 million jobs. This is more than the three top energy-intensive industries (steel,
chemicals and cement), which the EGD called “indispensable to Europe’s econ-
omy”, while forgetting to even mention the forest industry. In addition, the EU
forest-based sector also includes 400,000 small- and medium-scale enterprises and
16 million forest owners. Thus, the forest-based sector offers an extensive and
unique socioecological ‘fabric’ in which to progress the EGD ambitions.
In summary, the bioeconomy, when managed in a sustainable way, has major

potential for helping to deliver the ambition set by the EGD. Palahí et al. (2020a, b)
also stated that “it is still an important missing part of the complicated puzzle to
overcome the past dichotomy between economy and ecology that very much defined
the twentieth century. The bioeconomy provides us with the opportunity to build a
new and synergistic relationship between technology and nature, between ecology
and economy that can define the twenty-first century: the century where we would
finally start respecting the laws of physics and integrate biology”.
2.4 Diverse Role of Forests and Forest-Based Products
As indicated above, the EDG views EU forests as mainly contributing to climate

mitigation via forest sinks. Accordingly, the policy suggestions of the EDG empha-
sise reforestation, the restoration of degraded forests and forest conservation. The
role of the forest bioeconomy in this effort is missing from the document. As argued
above, this is a clear shortcoming, and hopefully it will be addressed later, in the
design and implementation phase of the policies.
It is fitting to reflect on the importance of the global and EU forest-based sectors
in climate mitigation based on some key statistics. Forests and wood are not equally
distributed across world regions, and forests are also managed and used in different
ways. These differences partly explain why forests have played diverse roles for
nations, and also why cultural meaning and citizen perceptions of forests may differ
across countries.
More than half (54%) of the world’s forests are located in only five countries––
the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the USA and China (Food and Agriculture
Organization [FAO] 2020). The forest area in the EU is relatively small in global
terms, but its role as a forest bioeconomy products producer is a major one (Fig. 2.1).
The EU forest area (ha) in 2020 accounted for only 3.9% of the world total, but its
export value for forest products was 41% of the world total, amounting to USD95
billion (FAOSTAT). Although most of this export value figure is related to the EU’s
internal trade, the exports to regions outside the EU are also major. In 2017, the
EU27 forest products export value to regions outside the EU27 was USD36.5 bil-
lion, or 37% of the total EU27 forest products export value. This was more than the
combined forest products export value of Brazil, China and the Russian Federation
(USD35.3 billion), whose share of the world forests is 38% (i.e. 10 times more than
the EU27).
Figure 2.1 indicates that the potential impact of the EU’s forest sink at the global
level is low, and will be so in the future due to its small proportion of forest area.
However, it is evident that the EU has to do its share in contributing to climate miti-
gation by enhancing forest sinks, and also providing an example of how this can be
done via forest management. Its recent record on this has been quite good. According
to the FAO, the forest area in Europe (excluding Russia) has increased by 17 million
ha (9%) over the last three decades––an amount equal to the entire forest area of
Fig. 2.1 Shares of forest area and forest-product export values of the global total in 2020. (Data:
FAOSTAT)
France. The volume of wood stock has increased even more, by 46%. Moreover, the
carbon stock of forests in Europe (excluding Russia) has also been growing steadily
over the last three decades––in 2020 it was 24% higher than in 1990 (FAO 2020).
On the other hand, the highly significant position the EU has in global forest-
products exports indicates that it can play a major role in helping to advance the
replacement of fossil-based energy, raw materials and products, and generally
enhance sustainable production and consumption. To strengthen this role, EU27
forest bioeconomy product innovations, and increasing resource efficiency and cir-
cularity, will be key priorities. In doing this, the EU27 can also have a significant
global impact in the movement to more sustainable production.
Interestingly, the increasing forest area and carbon sink in Europe has evolved
simultaneously with a significant increase in wood production. Europe’s (excluding
Russia) timber production added up to 13.5 billion m3 between 1992 and 2019,
increasing by 67% during this period. Consequently, Europe has concurrently
increased wood production, forest area, the volume of wood stock and the extent of
the carbon sink. Unfortunately, this trend has not been seen globally, with deforesta-
tion taking place over the last few decades, especially in Africa and South America.
According to the FAO, the area of protected forests in Europe has also more than
doubled during the last three decades. However, they cover less than 8% of the area
used for wood production. Clearly, as also suggested by the EU’s Biodiversity
Strategy from 2020, there is a need to further increase forest biodiversity. One
important implication of the above data is, however, that it has been possible to
enhance many of the forest ecosystem services at the same time. The EU should
build on the lessons learnt from this history to implement its EGD.
But will there be enough wood for bioeconomy development in the EU27?
Figure 2.2 shows the EU27 roundwood production and forest growing stock for the
last two decades.1
In the EU27, roundwood production increased by 21% and the growing stock by
25% from 2000 to 2019. The ‘outliers’ in the roundwood production in 2005 and
2007 are due to large windstorm impacts, whereas the 2009 slump is the result of
the global financial crisis. In 2018 and 2019, salvage logging in the EU27 appears
to have been higher than the long-term average. Despite the increase in roundwood
production, the EU27 produces slightly less wood today than it did two decades
ago, in terms of the volume of trees in the forests. In 2019, 1.8% of the total volume
of wood in the forests was used for roundwood production. Also, EU27 roundwood
imports are today at the same level as they were at the beginning of this century.
Thus, so far, wood resources have not impeded bioeconomic development in
the EU27.
The future wood potential from EU27 forests, and the demand for it, are uncer-
tain. The future wood supply potential will depend on factors such as the age struc-
ture of the forests, forest management measures, climate change impacts (positive
and negative), afforestation and deforestation, the scale of conservation, etc. On the
other hand, the demand for roundwood in the future will depend, for example, on
the emergence of new bioproducts, the competitiveness of EU27 forest industries,
better wood resource efficiency (e.g. using forest residues and production side
Index 2000 = 100

130 130
125 125
Roundwood production
120 Growing stock 120
115 115
110 110
105 105
100 100
95 95
90 90
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Data sources: FAOSTAT, FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (2020) and Forest Europe (2020).
Fig. 2.2 EU27 roundwood production and forest growing stock, 2000–2019. (Data sources:
FAOSTAT, FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (2020) and Forest Europe (2020))
1
The growing stock is the volume of all living trees in a given area of forest and it is a close
approximation of the total aboveground biomass in forests. It forms the basis, for instance, for
quantifying the carbon sequestration in forests. It usually involves measuring all the trees with a
total height greater than 1.3 m.
streams), the declining demand for some traditional forest products (e.g. paper), and
the level of roundwood imports and exports. What is worrying is that there is a lack
of systematic global and European outlook studies that have comprehensively ana-
lysed the wood supply and demand in a way that the ongoing structural changes are
taken into account (Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2016; Jonsson et al. 2017;
Hurmekoski et al. 2018; Hetemäki et al. 2020). Clearly, this is a serious shortcom-
ing for the future planning and implementation of the EGD as well.
To conclude, motivated by the above facts, this book’s focus is on the whole
forest-based sector––not just forest sinks––when discussing the role of forests in
climate change mitigation.
References
Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J et al (2020) Forest biodi-

versity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for
ten Forest landscapes across Europe. Front Ecol Evol 8:e547696. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fevo.2020.547696
Committee on Climate Change (2019) Net zero: the UK’s contribution to stopping global warm-
ing. Committee on Climate Change, London
Communiqué Global Bioeconomy Summit (2015) Making bioeconomy work for sustainable
development. http://gbs2015.com/fileadmin/gbs2015/Downloads/Communique_final.pdf.
Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Díaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Lexer M, Peltola H (2020) Multi-objective forestry increases
the production of ecosystem services. Forestry Int J For Res 2020:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/
forestry/cpaa041
EU (2018) Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land-use
change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU)
No. 525/2013 and Decision No. 529/2013/EU
European Commission (EC) (2019) The European Green Deal. Brussels, 11.12.2019, COM(2019)
640 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%
3A640%3AFIN
FAOSTAT (2020). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO. Accessed XX Jan 2021
Forest Europe (2020) State of Europe’s Forests 2020. https://foresteurope.org/
state-europes-forests-2020
Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P et al (2013)
Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307
Hetemäki L, Hurmekoski E (2016) Forest products markets under change: review and research I
mplications. Curr For Rep 2:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0042-z
way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. From Science to Policy 5. European Forest
Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs05
Hetemäki L, Palahi M, Nasi R (2020) Seeing the wood in the forests. Knowledge to Action no. 1.
European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/k2a01
Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inac-
tion and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511841200
Hurmekoski E, Jonsson R, Korhonen J, Jänis J, Mäkinen M, Leskinen P, Hetemäki L (2018)

Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products. Can J For Res
48(12):1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116
IEA (2020a) Coal information: overview. Statistics report, July 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/
coal-information-overview. Accessed XX Jan 2021
IEA (2020b) Global CO2 emissions in 2019. https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-
in-2019. Accessed XX Jan 2021
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2020) IPBES
workshop on biodiversity and pandemics: executive summary. https://ipbes.net/. Accessed XX
Jan 2021
IPCC (2018) Special report on global warming of 1.5°C approved by governments. IPCC,
Switzerland
IPCC (2019) The ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate – a special report of the intergovern-
mental panel on climate change. IPCC, Switzerland
Jonsson R, Hurmekoski E, Hetemäki L, Prestemon J (2017) What is the current state of forest
product markets and how will they develop in the future? In: Winkel G (ed) Towards a sus-
tainable European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. What science
can tell us, no. 8. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-
bank/2018/efi_wsctu8_2017.pdf
Krumm F, Schuck A, Rigling A (Eds.) (2020) How to balance forestry and biodiversity conserva-
tion. A view across Europe. European Forest Institute and Swiss Federal Research Institute.
https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.196
Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J et al (2010) Climate
change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol
Manag 259:698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023
Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem
properties. Science 277(5325):504–509. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.504
Michud A, Tanttu M, Asaadi S, Ma Y, Netti E, Kääriainen P,… Sixta H (2016) Ioncell-F: ionic
liquid-based cellulosic textile fibers as an alternative to viscose and Lyocell. Text Res J
86:543–552
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island
Press, Washington, DC
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi
Science to Policy 2. European Forest Institute. 10.36333/fs02
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M, Ollikainen M (2017)
Mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double by 2050 through climate smart forestry.
Forests 8(12):484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
NASA (2020) Climate change: how do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Accessed
28 Nov 2020
Nerem RS, Beckley BD, Fasullo JT, Hamlington BD, Masters D, Mitchum GT (2018) Climate-
change–driven accelerated sealevel rise detected in the altimeter era. PNAS 115(9):2022–2025.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115
Official Journal of the European Union (2011) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305&from=EN. Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Ollikainen M (2014) Forests in the bioeconomy – smart green growth for humankind. Scand. J
For Res 29:360–366
Otto IM, Donges JF, Cremades R, Bhowmik A, Hewitt RJ, Lucht W et al (2020) Social tipping
dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. PNAS 117(5):2354–2365. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1900577117
Palahí M, Hetemäki L, Potocnik J (2020a) Bioeconomy: The missing link to connect the dots in the
EU Green Deal. EURACTIVE. https://pr.euractiv.com/pr/bioeconomy-missing-link-connect-
dots-eu-green-deal-202385 and European Forest Institute blog: https://blog.efi.int/bioeconomy-

the-missing-link-to-connect-the-dots-in-the-eu-green-deal/ Accessed 20 Mar 2020
Palahí M, Pantsar M, Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Potočnik J, Stuchtey M, … Bas L (2020b)
Investing in Nature as the true engine of our economy: A 10-point Action Plan for a Circular
Bioeconomy of Wellbeing. Knowledge to Action 02, European Forest Institute. https://doi.
org/10.36333/k2a02
Priebe J, Mårald E, Nordin A (2020) Narrow pasts and futures: how frames of sustainabil-
ity transformation limit societal change. J Environ Stud Sci 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13412-020-00636-3
Priefer C, Jörissen J, Frör O (2017) Pathways to shape bioeconomy. Resources 6:1–23
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009) Planetary
boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ (2017) A road-
map for rapid decarbonization. Science 355(6331). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al (2015) Planetary
boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1259855
Sukhdev PW, Schröter-Schlaack H, Nesshöver C, Bishop C, Brink J (2010) The economics of eco-
systems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach,
conclusions and recommendations of TEEB (No. 333.95 E19). UNEP, Geneva
United Nations (2019) Global environment outlook GEO-6 – healthy planet, healthy people.
United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
United Nations (2020) Paris agreement – status of ratification. https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-
agreement/status-of-ratification. Accessed 26 Apr 2020
Velicogna I, Mohajerani Y, Geruo A, Landerer F, Mouginot J, Noel B et al (2020) Continuity of
ice sheet mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica from the GRACE and GRACE follow-on
missions. Geophys Res Lett 47(8):e2020GL087291. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087291
von Schuckmann K, Cheng L, Palmer D, Hansen J, Tassone C, Aich V et al (2020) Heat stored in
the Earth system: where does the energy go? Earth Syst Sci Data 12(3):2013–2041. https://doi.
org/10.5194/essd-12-2013-2020
William J, Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Galetti M, Newsome TM, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI,
Laurance WF (2017) World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience
67(12):1026–1028
Chapter 3
Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation
and Risk Management
Ari Venäläinen, Kimmo Ruosteenoja, Ilari Lehtonen, Mikko Laapas,

Olli-Pekka Tikkanen, and Heli Peltola
Abstract Under the moderate future greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP4.5),
climate model simulations project that the annual mean temperature will increase in
Europe by up to 2–3 °C by the middle of this century, compared to the end of the
nineteenth century. The temperature increase is projected to be larger in Northern
Europe than in Central and Southern Europe. The annual precipitation is projected
to decrease in Southern Europe and increase in Northern and Central Europe. The
projected changes in temperature and precipitation are expected to be higher in the
winter than in the summer months. In Northern Europe, forest growth is generally
projected to increase due to warmer and longer growing seasons. In southern Europe
in particular, warmer and dryer summers are projected to decrease forest growth.
Climate change is expected also to expose forests and forestry to multiple abiotic
and biotic risks throughout Europe. The greatest abiotic risks to forests are caused
by windstorms, drought, forest fires and extreme snow loading on trees. The warmer
climate will also increase biotic risks to forests, such as damage caused by
European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) outbreaks in Norway spruce (Picea
abies) forests and wood decay by Heterobasidion spp. root rot in Norway spruce
and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) forests. Different adaptation and risk management
actions may be needed, depending on geographical region and time span, in order to
maintain forest resilience, which is also important for climate change mitigation.
Keywords Adaptive management · European forests · Forest resilience · Global

greenhouse gas emission scenarios · Impacts of climate change · Natural
disturbances
A. Venäläinen (*) · K. Ruosteenoja · I. Lehtonen · M. Laapas

Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
O.-P. Tikkanen · H. Peltola

34 A. Venäläinen et al.
3.1 Global Climate Change
3.1.1 Global Climate Change in the Past
During the four billion years of planet Earth’s existence, global climate has fluctu-
ated greatly. Basically, these variations have been controlled by the heat balance of
the planet. Virtually all the energy that drives the climate system originates from the
sun. Approximately 70% of the total incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
earth, whilst the remaining 30% is reflected back into space. The energy input from
solar radiation is balanced by the emission of thermal infrared radiation into space.
A major part of the thermal radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed and then
re-emitted by the atmosphere before ending up in space. This phenomenon is known
as the greenhouse effect. The effectiveness of the phenomenon depends on the con-
centrations of various gases in the atmosphere. The most important greenhouse
gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane, ozone, nitrous oxide
and several other gases likewise have some importance. In the absence of the green-
house effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be about −18 °C,
whereas the actual current global mean is +14 °C; that is, more than 30 °C higher
than without the greenhouse effect.
Natural climate changes in the history of the earth have been caused by multiple
factors. These include long-term variations in the solar radiance, changes in the
composition of the atmosphere, continental drifts and volcanic eruptions. During
the past few million years, the climate has mainly been relatively cool, and ice ages
with milder interglacial periods have followed one another on time scales of
10,000–100,000 years. Such glacial–interglacial variations are primarily induced by
changes in Earth’s orbit and axis of rotation. In addition, such variations are ampli-
fied by synchronous shifts in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Since the pre-industrial era (i.e. from the nineteenth century), the global mean
temperature has increased by about 1 °C. Accordingly, over the last few centurieis
and decades, global climate has changed very rapidly compared to the trends typi-
cally experienced over millions of years in the past. This is due to the large increase
in human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases –– especially CO2 –– into the
atmosphere. The major source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the combustion of
fossil fuels, the use of which has increased tremendously in tandem with global
energy consumption. Deforestation and other changes in land use have also contrib-
uted to such emissions, albeit to a lesser extent. During the 1980s, climate change
became recognised as a serious challenge to humankind. In order to respond to this
challenge, the United Nations (UN) endorsed the establishment of an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 (Box 3.1).
3 Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation and Risk Management 35
Box 3.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The United Nations (UN) endorsed the establishment of IPCC during its
General Assembly in 1988. The IPCC was set up under the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The IPCC is an organisation of the governments that are members of the UN,
with the number of members currently being 195. The objective of the IPCC
is to provide state-of-the-art scientific information about climate change.
Besides climate change as a phenomenon, the IPCC produces comprehensive
reviews and recommendations about the social and economic impacts of such
change, along with potential response strategies. Consequently, the IPCC
plays a fundamental role in the international conventions on climate. Since
1988, the IPCC has published five comprehensive assessment reports con-
cerning climate change. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), finalised in
2013–2014, provided the scientific input for the Paris Agreement. Further the
Sixth Assessment cycle has provided three Special Reports, a Methodology
Report and the Sixth Assessment Report. The first Special Report –– ‘Global
warming of 1.5 °C’ –– was requested by world governments under the Paris
Agreement, and was published in October 2018. The ‘Special Report on
Climate Change and Land’ (SRCCL) was published in August 2019, and the
‘Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’
(SROCC) in September 2019.
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of

280 ppm (parts per million by volume) to about 410 ppm in 2019. Simultaneously,
the concentration of methane has more than doubled. On the other hand, a concur-
rent increase in the amount of sulphates and other aerosol particles originating from
anthropogenic emissions has partially compensated for the warming effect from the
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Aerosol-induced cooling results from the
increased reflectance of solar radiation back into space. Nevertheless, greenhouse
gas concentrations will eventually overwhelm this phenomenon because they con-
tinue to accumulate in the atmosphere, whereas aerosol particles are continuously
being washed out from the atmosphere. Current emissions of CO2 will be influenc-
ing the atmospheric composition for several millennia.
3.1.2 Assessment of Future Global Climate Change
Projections of future climates are derived from simulations performed using global
climate models (GCMs). These models simulate the behaviour of the climate sys-
tem by means of the application of physical laws. Climate models include discrete
components for the atmosphere, oceans, soil, vegetation and cryosphere, and also
consider interactions among these subsystems. In assessing future climate, such
models are forced using different atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration sce-
narios (Box 3.2). Climate models require large computational resources, and thus
they need to be run on supercomputers. Even so, the available computational capac-
ity does not allow the models to simulate all the processes of the climate system in
full detail. Hence, simplifying approximations are necessary, and these simplifica-
tions are implemented in different ways in the various models. Consequently, simu-
lated future climatic changes diverge among the models. To obtain the most realistic
picture of anticipated future changes and their uncertainties, it is recommended to
use a wide array of climate models rather than rely on only one or a few.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the global emissions and atmospheric concentrations of
CO2, as well as the modelled evolution of mean global warming, under three RCP
scenarios (for further information about the RCP scenarios, see the Box 3.2). The
changes in temperature are given relative to the temporal mean of the period
1971–2000. Prior to this period, the global mean temperature had already risen by
about 0.5 °C. Under the RCP8.5 scenario, global warming would continue through-
out the current century, and the global mean temperature would increase by almost
4 °C within 100 years. Under RCP4.5, the corresponding increase would be about
2 °C, whilst under RCP2.6, it would be slightly more than 1 °C. Considering the
global warming already taking place before the baseline period of 1971–2000, the
last scenario corresponds to a temperature increase of slightly less than 2 °C com-
pared to the pre-industrial level. Regardless of future reductions in emissions, global
warming will continue during the next few decades.
Compared to other regions on Earth, very intense warming has been simulated
for northern polar areas in winter as a result of the partial disappearance of sea-ice
cover. Conversely, in the northern Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland, warming will be
modest because a weakening of the warm ocean current (the Gulf Stream) will
Fig. 3.1 Temporal evolution of global emissions in gigatonnes of carbon per year (left panel),
atmospheric concentrations in parts per million by volume of CO2 (central panel), and projected
changes in global mean annual temperature in degrees Centigrade (right panel) for the period
2000–2085 under the RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Temperature change is expressed
relative to 1971–2000 and corresponds to the mean of simulations made using 28 different climate
models (Ruosteenoja et al. 2016a; Venäläinen et al. 2020)
partially cancel the influence of global warming. Precipitation is projected to

increase in equatorial areas. In addition, winter precipitation will increase at high
latitudes. Decreasing precipitation totals are expected in multiple subtropical areas.
Globally, climate change will have multiple serious implications. In particular,
the RCP8.5 scenario would lead to very severe climate change, with the conse-
quences for many underdeveloped countries being catastrophic because agricultural
production would suffer immensely from high temperatures and water shortages.
This could lead to massive migrations from the developing world into wealthier
countries. The rates of thermal expansion in ocean waters and the melting of conti-
nental glaciers and polar ice sheets would increase. The resulting sea-level rise
would threaten numerous large coastal settlements and, consequently, a large pro-
portion of Earth’s population. In addition, the rapid environmental change would
also threaten to drive a substantial share of the planet’s plant and animal species to
extinction.
Box 3.2 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

Future emissions, and the resulting atmospheric concentrations of the various
greenhouse gases, cannot be known in advance, and therefore several alterna-
tive greenhouse gas scenarios have been developed. The emissions depend on
the growth of the world population, energy consumption, energy production
technologies, land use, etc. Since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),
future greenhouse gas scenarios called Representative Concentration
Pathways (RCPs) have been used. The RCP2.6 scenario represents very low
emissions, whilst RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 involve moderate and very high emis-
sions, respectively. The number after the acronym refers to radiative forcing;
that is, the imbalance between the solar radiation absorbed and the thermal
infrared radiation emitted by the earth. For example, if the RCP4.5 scenario is
realised, the positive (= warming) globally averaged radiative forcing at the
end of the twenty-first century will be 4.5 Wm−2. The RCP scenarios take
account of the future emissions and atmospheric concentrations of several
other greenhouse gases besides CO2, as well as the aerosol particles. According
to the RCP8.5 scenario, emissions would continue to increase throughout the
twenty-first century, ultimately reaching three times the amount in 2000. The
concentration of CO2 would then approach 1000 ppm by 2100 (Fig. 3.1). In
the RCP4.5 scenario, the CO2 concentration would stabilise at close to
540 ppm. This level is about double that of the pre-industrial era. Under the
most environmentally friendly RCP2.6 scenario, the concentrations would
start to decrease slowly after the middle of this century. The RCP2.6 scenario
would roughly meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. More information
about the RCP scenarios is available in van Vuuren et al. (2011).
If the RCP2.6 scenario is realised, the consequences of the change will be far less
severe than those resulting from RCP8.5. However, this target would require effi-
cient reductions in global emissions starting right now, in the 2020s. This seems to
be a huge challenge at present. Apart from the reduction in emissions, land-use
changes, such as increasing or decreasing the share of forests, can impact green-
house gas concentrations either adversely or favourably. Growing forests effectively
absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. However, they also impact surface albedo, i.e.
increasing albedo cooling the climate and decreasing albedo adding to the warming,
respectively.
3.1.3 Projected Climate Change in Europe
In Europe, by the middle of this century, under RCP4.5, climate model simula-
tions have projected the largest annual mean temperature increase –– about 3 °C
relative to the end of the nineteenth century –– for the north-eastern part of the
continent (Fig. 3.2). In Western Europe and along the coasts of the Mediterranean
Sea, the projected warming is close to 2 °C. During the winter months, the warm-
ing in Northern Europe will be stronger than during the summer. Annual precipita-
tion is projected to decrease in Southern Europe and increase in Northern and
Central Europe. The maximum local annual changes would be around ±10%. The
increase in precipitation in Northern Europe is projected to be the greatest in win-
ter, whilst the decrease in precipitation will be the greatest in Southern Europe
during summer.
The annual amount of solar radiation will increase across most of Europe. The
largest increase –– about 6% –– is projected for Central Europe. Relative humidity
is projected to decrease by 1–3 percentages. Temporal fluctuations in temperature
will attenuate in the cold season, whereas fluctuations in precipitation will be ampli-
fied. Changes in their variability are expected to be strongest in the northern and
north-eastern parts of the continent.
Under RCP4.5, the thermal growing season (defined as the period when daily
mean temperatures are above 5 °C) is projected to lengthen by 10–15 days, both in
the spring and autumn, from 1971–2000 to 2040—2069. Moreover, the temperature
sum of the growing season is projected to increase by several hundreds of degree
days. For example, around 2050, the average sum of growing degree days (GDDs,
with base temperature of 5 °C) in southern Fennoscandia would be approximately
the same as in northern Central Europe in the late twentieth century (Fig. 3.3).
Fig. 3.2 Projected changes in annual mean temperature (°C), precipitation (%), incident solar
radiation (%) and relative humidity (in percentage points) in Europe from the period 1971–2000 to
2040–2069 under RCP4.5 (Venäläinen et al. 2019)
3.2 Climate Change Impacts on Forests and Forestry
3.2.1 Forest Growth and Dynamics
Climate change is already having both direct and indirect effects on forests and
forestry in different European regions. The direct effects include changes in the
growing conditions of the forests due to changing temperatures, precipitation and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Indirect effects consist of various abiotic and
biotic disturbances. In addition, land-use policy aimed at mitigating climate change
Fig. 3.3 Average sum of growing degree days (GDDs, with base temperature of 5 °C) for the
period 1971–2000 and projection for the years 2040–2069 under RCP4.5 (redrawn from
Ruosteenoja et al. 2016b)
can affect forests. As well as climate change and its severity, the future growth and
dynamics of forests will be affected by the forest structure (i.e. the proportions and
ages of tree species) and the intensity of forest management and harvesting (e.g.
Heinonen et al. 2018). Climate change may have both positive and negative impacts
on forest growth, such impacts depending on the geographical region and forest
zone (European Environment Agency 2017).
In Northern Europe, longer and warmer growing seasons in general will promote
more optimal forest growing conditions, especially in boreal forests at high latitudes
and altitudes. This is because boreal forest growth is currently primarily limited by
relatively short summers and low summer temperatures (Hyvönen et al. 2007). In
addition, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will favour forest growth
(e.g. Hyvönen et al. 2007). In Southern Europe, but also to some extent in Central
and Northern Europe, the growing conditions may become suboptimal for some tree
species (Allen et al. 2010; Reyer et al. 2014). This is related to too high tempera-
tures and too low soil water availability during the growing seasons. As a result, the
growth of some tree species may slow down and mortality may increase. The differ-
ences in the responses among various tree species may be expected to increase in
tandem with the severity of the climate change. In addition, the expected increase in
many abiotic and biotic disturbances may counteract the positive effects of climate
change on forest productivity, at least partially (Jactel et al. 2011; Reyer et al. 2017;
Seidl et al. 2017).
3.2.2 Abiotic Disturbances
3.2.2.1 Wind and Snow Damage
During the last few decades, the major causes of widespread forest damage in
Europe have been windstorms and forest fires (Schelhaas et al. 2003; Senf and Seidl
2021). In the period 1986–2016, storms were a major disturbance agent in Western
and Central Europe, accounting locally for >50% of all disturbances (Senf and Seidl
2021). However, storm-related disturbances have also occurred in south-eastern and
Eastern Europe. Fires have been a major disturbance agent in Southern and South-
eastern Europe, but they have also occurred in Eastern and Northern Europe.
Strong winds have destroyed a significant amount of timber, causing substantial
economic losses for forestry, especially in Central and Northern Europe. The
increased amount of wind damage in the last few decades can be explained, at least
partly, by an increasing volume of growing stock and changes in forest structures
(Schelhaas et al. 2003). In Northern Europe, wind damage is likely to increase in the
future because climate warming will shorten the duration of soil frost, which cur-
rently provides additional anchorage for trees during the windiest season of the
year, from late autumn to early spring (Lehtonen et al. 2019). In addition, soil mois-
ture is projected to increase in late autumn, likewise making forests more vulnerable
to windfall.
According to multi-model-derived projections for European wind climate, cli-
mate change will not significantly alter the wind speeds in Northern Europe
(Ruosteenoja et al. 2019). There is no robust signal of increasing or decreasing
storminess in other European regions, either (e.g. Kjellström et al. 2018; Ruosteenoja
et al. 2019). However, the projections for future trends in storminess diverge among
the climate models (e.g. Feser et al. 2015). Accordingly, possible regional increases
in the intensity of strong storms, changes in storm tracks, increasing growing stock
and changes in forest structures (age and tree species composition) may affect the
wind damage risks to forests.
Compared to the damage caused by windstorms, snow-induced damage in
European forests is typically far less severe (Schelhaas et al. 2003). Snow-induced
damage occurs most frequently in Northern Europe and at high altitudes (Nykänen
et al. 1997). For most of Europe, climate model projections for the mid-twenty-first
century indicate slightly decreasing probabilities for heavy snow loading. In north-
ern Fennoscandia (e.g. northern and eastern Finland and north-western Russia),
however, the probability of heavy snow loads may increase slightly (Groenemeijer
et al. 2016; Lehtonen et al. 2016a). Excessive snow loads typically result in stem
breakage and the bending or leaning of tree stems. In particular, young Scots pines
(Pinus sylvestris) and broadleaf trees with a large height-to-stem-diameter ratio are
susceptible to snow damage (Nykänen et al. 1997). With unfrozen soil, trees can be
uprooted. The increase in duration of frost-free periods is expected to increase such
damage under the warming climate.
In addition to climatic factors, the severity of wind and snow damage risk is
affected by the tree and stand characteristics (tree species, height and diameter, root-
ing characteristics, and stand density) and the forest configuration (e.g. the distance
from the upwind edge of a new clearcut). For example, in high-risk areas of the
boreal zone, an increase in the cultivation of the shallow-rooted Norway spruce
(Picea abies) at the cost of Scots pine will increase the future wind damage risk
(Ikonen et al. 2020). Conversely, an increase in the cultivation of pine and broadleaf
trees will increase the future snow damage risk (Nykänen et al. 1997). Trees dam-
aged by wind or snow may also bend over or lean on power lines, and thus may
disrupt the availability of electricity to society.
3.2.2.2 Drought and Forest Fires
Global climate change is expected to increase the occurrence of summer drought

everywhere in Europe, most severely in the south, but to some extent in the north as
well. This increasing drought will be caused by an intensification in potential evapo-
ration, which will outweigh the impact of changes in precipitation. In Northern
Europe, the average moisture in the soil surface layer will decrease, especially in
spring and early summer, whereas in Southern Europe, the loss will be most pro-
nounced in late summer (Fig. 3.4). Consequently, anomalously dry conditions are
projected to become increasingly frequent in European forests (Ruosteenoja et al.
2018). Accordingly, at sites with water shortages, in particular, forest growth is
Fig. 3.4 Projected changes in time-mean near-surface soil moisture (in percentage points) in
Europe in June–August under RCP4.5 for the period 2040–2069. The change was averaged over
26 GCMs and is expressed relative to the period 1971–2000. Areas where at least 23 models agreed
on the sign of change are stippled (Ruosteenoja et al. 2018)
expected to decline and mortality to increase under a warmer climate (Allen

et al. 2010).
High temperatures and an increase in the frequency and severity of summer
drought periods will act to increase the risk of forest fires. This phenomenon has
already been observed, particularly in South-eastern Europe (Venäläinen et al.
2014). The widespread, devastating fires in Sweden in the summers of 2014 and
2018 showed that large-scale forest fires are possible in the Nordic countries as
well. For example, a single fire in Sweden in 2014 burned 14,000 ha of forest (Joint
Research Centre 2015).
In the southern parts of Europe, the meteorological fire danger is projected to
increase significantly by the middle of this century (e.g. Groenemeijer et al. 2016).
It is likely that the fire danger will likewise increase in Northern Europe (Lehtonen
et al. 2016b). In semi-arid areas, such as the Mediterranean region, low vegetation
productivity may limit these fires, and therefore the actual occurrence of fires may
increase less drastically than what is predicted by the changing weather conditions
alone. However, even when considering ecosystem functioning, the area burned is
still likely to increase, especially in the Mediterranean Basin, the Balkan region and
Eastern Europe (Migliavacca et al. 2013; Turco et al. 2018). Under a warmer and
dryer climate, there may be an increasing risk for mega-scale forest fires in European
forests, such as those that have recently occurred in Canada and Siberia (e.g. Hanes
et al. 2019; Walker et al. 2019). Such disturbances could release huge amounts of
stored carbon into the atmosphere, thus nullifying the potential positive impact on
climate change on carbon sequestration in forests.
3.2.3 Biotic Disturbances
3.2.3.1 European Spruce Bark Beetle Outbreaks
In recent decades, disturbances from bark beetles have greatly increased in Europe.
The amount of timber damaged by bark beetles in spruce and pine forest has
increased by nearly 70% over the last 40 years, from 2.2 million m3 per year
(1971–1980) to 14.5 million m3 per year (2002–2010) (Seidl et al. 2014). The plant-
ing of Norway spruce outside of its natural range (and on sites with lower soil water
holding capacity), an increase in growing stocks, and changes in forest age struc-
tures and compositions have made forests more prone to bark beetle outbreaks
(Hlásny et al. 2019; Jandl 2020). In addition to warm and dry summer conditions,
severe wind damage and drought also intensify bark beetle outbreaks (Marini
et al. 2017).
The primary bark beetle species in Europe responsible for outbreaks is the widely
distributed, eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus) (e.g.
Christiansen and Bakke 1988). At low population levels, it colonises only stressed
and dying trees (e.g. wind-damaged Norway spruce). However, at high population
levels, it can mount a mass attack on a large number of healthy trees. European
spruce bark beetle particularly favours older and larger trees (e.g. aged >60 years,
diameter at breast height > 20–25 cm) (Hlásny et al. 2019). European spruce bark
beetle outbreaks have largely increased in recent years in Europe (Hlásny et al.
2019, 2021; Jandl 2020; Romashkin et al. 2020). For example, in Czechia in 2017,
in an unforeseen, severe outbreak, the amount of damaged timber exceeded the
annual demand at the country level, collapsing the timber market and prices, respec-
tively. In Austria over the last decade, the high supply of beetle-infested timber has
reduced the market price for bark beetle affected timber to 30% of the previous level
(Jandl 2020). In Sweden, a European spruce bark beetle outbreak damaged an addi-
tional 4 million m3 of timber after windstorm Gudrun, which damaged 70 million
m3 of timber in January 2005 (Lindelöw and Schroeder 2008).
The survival and reproduction of European spruce bark beetle benefit from
warmer and dryer climates, and thus also from climate warming (Christiansen and
Bakke 1988; Jönsson et al. 2007; Lindelöw and Schroeder 2008; Hlásny et al. 2019;
Jandl 2020). Under optimal conditions, bark beetle populations can increase more
than 15-fold from one generation to the next (Hlásny et al. 2019). It can also pro-
duce two generations (multivoltinism) in one summer, if swarming conditions are
favourable early in the season, and the sum of GDDs exceeds approximately
1500 °C days, which is twice the GDD sum needed for the complete development
of an individual, from egg to adult (625–750 GDDs) (Jönsson et al. 2007). Moreover,
the number of successfully developed beetles in different sister broods of the first
generation increase with an increase in GDD sum (Öhrn et al. 2014). In warm areas
of the southern part of the species distribution region, a third generation may also be
possible (Jakoby et al. 2019).
Lower GDDs currently partially explain the lower bark beetle outbreak risk in
Northern Europe compared with more southerly areas. However, the 1500 GDD
isoline that potentially allows a change from univoltine (i.e. a single generation in
summer) to multivoltine population dynamics is moving northwards. For example,
in European Russia, the latitudinal shift of the isoline that indicates the northern
limit of 1500 GDD has moved 450 km northwards since the 1960s (Romashkin
et al. 2020).
Based on Asikainen et al. (2019), the probability of exceeding the GDD sum of
a 1500 °C-day threshold will increase in Northern Europe under climate change.
Recent warmer and drier summers, together with unharvested wood left in forests
after wind damage, have already increased the populations and attacks of bark bee-
tles in the southern boreal zone, and even in middle boreal zone (Romashkin et al.
2020). Overall, European spruce bark beetle outbreaks are projected to increase in
the future, under warmer and drier climates, from Central to Northern Europe
(Jönssön et al. 2007; Seidl et al. 2014).
3.2.3.2 Other Biotic Threats to Forest Health
European spruce bark beetle is currently the most obvious biotic damage agent in
European forests, outbreaks of which have markedly increased with climate warm-
ing. However, climate change also affects the reproduction, growth, behaviour and
potential distribution range of other species that can cause problems with forest
health. Thus, disturbances by several other major forest pathogens, pest insects and
browsing mammal species are also expected to increase in European forests.
In Northern Europe, Heterobasidion spp. root rot is already one of the most
destructive diseases in conifers (Garbelotto and Gonthier 2013). However, increas-
ing temperatures are further increasing its spore formation and the growth rate of its
mycelia. Milder winters increase the length of the period the fungus is able to spread
and infect new stands (La Porta et al. 2008). Together, these intensify the amount of
decay in infected trees and the spread of fungus in diseased stands.
The epiphytic, parasitic vascular plant, pine mistletoe (Viscum album ssp. aus-
triacum), is also increasing in abundance at its current northern limit, such as in
Germany and Poland, and is spreading upwards into the montane forests of Europe
(Szmidla et al. 2019). This is probably the result of increasing winter temperatures
in areas where pine mistletoe has previously been limited by the low freeze toler-
ance of its seeds. Abundant mistletoe populations reduce tree growth substantially
and, in dry areas, they also increase water stress and tree mortality (Kollas
et al. 2018).
Higher temperatures are likely to promote distributional shifts in many native
forest pest-insect species and invasive alien species towards more northerly lati-
tudes and higher elevations (Battisti and Larsson 2015). Frequent cold winters in
Northern Europe have so far limited outbreaks of many insect defoliators that over-
winter as eggs. However, an increase in winter temperatures will favour their repro-
duction and, concurrently, may increase the risk from these in the future. Nun moth
(Lymantria monacha), one of the most serious defoliators of coniferous forests in
Central Europe (Bejer 1988), is a good example. Previously cold winters have con-
trolled nun moth populations in Northern Europe because its eggs freeze in tem-
peratures below −30 °C (Fält-Nardmann et al. 2018). The species has been
historically absent or very rare in Finland, but since the 1990s, its populations have
increased hugely, and it is now very abundant in the southern part of the country
(Melin et al. 2020).
In Southern Europe, heat-tolerant and cold-sensitive species, such as the pine
processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) and the oak processionary moth
(Thaumetopoea processionea) have expanded their geographical ranges beyond the
Mediterranean region (Battisti et al. 2005; Godefroid et al. 2020). Processionary
moths damage not only trees, but their larvae have defensive hairs (urticating setae
that the larvae release when disturbed) that can cause allergic reactions in humans
(Vega et al. 2011). Therefore, the processionary moth is considered to be a threat to
human health when present in urban forests and parks (Rossi et al. 2016).
The warming climate is increasing problems relating to the regeneration of
coniferous forests in Europe by, for example, the large pine weevil (Hylobius
abietis) (Nordlander et al. 2017). This is because warmer summers and a shortening
of the frozen soil period is decreasing the development time of immature weevils,
increasing their feeding time and prolonging the feeding period. Browsing by high
local populations of moose (Alces alces) is also a serious problem in young Scots
pine and birch seedling stands in Northern Europe. The expected reduction in snow
depth and duration may increase the severity of browsing damage (e.g. Herfindal
et al. 2015).
3.3 Climate Change, Adaptation and Risk Management
Forests should provide multiple ecosystem services for society. However, climate
change is inducing many abiotic and biotic damage risks in forests and forestry at
different spatial and temporal scales, all of which affect the provisioning of ecosys-
tem services. Warmer and drier summer conditions particularly increase the risk of
damage by drought, forest fires and pest insects, while warmer and wetter winters
increase the risk of damage by windstorms and strong winds, heavy snow loading
and pathogens (Seidl et al. 2017). Such disturbances are likely to increase the most
in coniferous forests in the boreal zone. They may partially counteract the positive
effects of climate change on forest productivity, causing severe economic losses in
forests (Hanewinkel et al. 2013; Reyer et al. 2017).
The simultaneous occurrence of multiple hazardous events can make the adverse
impacts manifold (Hanewinkel et al. 2013; Venäläinen et al. 2020; Hlásny et al.
2019). Wind and snow damage in particular, but also the occurrence of drought,
may increase the availability of breeding material for bark beetles, thus enhancing
their outbreaks. The drought may further influence the forest fire risk through
increased tree mortality (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2014). Wind and snow damage may also
increase Heterobasidion spp. attacks through tree injuries from harvesting, which
will then exacerbate the risk of wind damage due to poorer anchorage and less stem
resistance in decaying-wood trees.
How vulnerable forests are to climate change and the associated increase in vari-
ous abiotic and biotic disturbances depends on the exposure (e.g. the severity of the
climate change, the climate variability and its extremes), sensitivity and adaptive
capacity of forests. Fortunately, adaptive forest management can offer ways to
increase the resilience of forests to climate change and its related disturbances. The
severity of climate change will affect the necessary adaptation and risk management
actions for different regions and time spans. In adaptation and risk management, the
occurrence of multiple hazardous events should be considered simultaneously in
order to ensure the sustainable provisioning of different ecosystem services for soci-
ety. Fortunately, the same management measures may simultaneously enhance the
resilience of forests against multiple abiotic and biotic disturbances (Table 3.1).
The resilience of forests against different abiotic and biotic disturbances may be
increased, for example, by modifying the age structure and tree species composition
at the forest landscape level through forest management. In forest regeneration, the
Table 3.1 Possible adaptive and risk management strategies

Possible management strategies for enhancing resilience
High temperature/drought
• region−/site-specific species/genotype choice
• natural regeneration where appropriate
• mixed conifer–deciduous stands
• wider spacing and heavier thinning regimes
• shorter rotation periods (or lower target diameters for final harvesting)
Wind damage
• region−/site-specific species choice
• timely pre-commercial and commercial thinning (not too heavy)
• avoidance of forest fertilisation at the same time as thinning
• avoidance of heavy thinning in the upwind edges of new openings
• avoidance of creating large height differences between adjacent stands in final harvesting
Snow damage
• region−/site-specific species choice
• timely pre-commercial and commercial thinning (not too heavy in dense stands)
• avoidance of forest fertilisation on sites at high altitudes (>200 m a.s.l.)
Bark beetle outbreak
• timely thinning to improve tree vigour (outbreak prevention)
• shorter rotation periods (or lower target diameters)
• harvesting of infested trees (sanitation felling and salvage logging)
• removal of harvested and wind-damaged trees before beetles fly in spring/emergence of first
new beetle generation
• mosaic of forest stands in forest landscapes to minimise spread of beetles
Heterobasidion root rot
• shorter rotation periods (or lower target diameters for final harvesting)
• harvesting of unhealthy trees
Forest fires
• fragmented forest landscape to limit fire spread
• timely thinning to avoid mortality (decrease in flammable material)
appropriate region- and site-specific choice of tree species (genotypes) and spacing
may increase the adaptive capacity and resilience of the forest in the long term.
Similarly, favouring more resilient tree species in pre-commercial (tending) and
commercial thinning may increase the resilience of the forest. By favouring mix-
tures of conifers and broadleaf species over monocultures on suitable sites, their
resilience may be further increased against many abiotic and biotic risks to forests
(e.g. Pretzsh et al. 2017). For example, the wind damage risk in forests with shallow-
rooting Norway spruce are well known throughout Europe (Jandl 2020). Overall,
single-species forests offer pests and pathogens more opportunities for spreading
than mixed stands, where tree species have different ecological niches. The latter
scenario provides, for example, fewer host trees for a bark beetle outbreak and could
also host larger populations of their natural enemies and competitors, etc. (Hlásny
et al. 2019). The use of greater thinning intensity or wider spacing increases water
availability at the tree level in a stand, which may decrease drought stress in trees,
and its consequent damage.
The avoidance of fertilisation in high-altitude forest sites, especially in relation
to thinning, may decrease the snow damage risk to boreal forests (e.g. Valinger and
Lundqvist 1992; Nykänen et al. 1997). Furthermore, the use of shorter rotation peri-
ods or lower target diameters for final harvesting may decrease the risk of damage
by windstorms and strong winds, pest insects (e.g. bark beetles) and pathogens (e.g.
wood decay by Heterobasidion), for example, in Norway spruce, which is particu-
larly sensitive to such damage. The increase in risk of large-scale forest fires during
summer droughts (Ruosteenoja et al. 2018) must also be considered in the timing of
forest harvesting operations because the sparks generated by the machinery used in
such activities may result in the ignition of forest fires.
Uncertainties relating to climate change, forest disturbances and the future pref-
erences of society call for the simultaneous use of diverse management strategies,
rather than a single, one-size-fits-all management strategy (e.g. even-, uneven- and
any-aged management), which might also help to increase the overall production
levels of ecosystem services (Díaz-Yáñez et al. 2020). Multi-functionality in forest
management may also ensure the simultaneous provisioning of different ecosystem
services for society, whilst increasing the resilience of forests against abiotic and
biotic disturbances. However, the frequent adjustment of forest management prac-
tices (e.g. 10–20-year frequency) to changing growing conditions is also needed in
order to adapt to climate change and maintain forest resilience, which are required
to sustain the provisioning of different ecosystem services. On the other hand, cli-
mate change may increase large-scale forest fire and pest insect occurrences in
unmanaged, mature forests (e.g. in forest conservation areas) due to the increased
tree mortality that will result from warmer and drier climates. As a result, these
disturbances may also spread to managed forests. Thus, preparedness for such risks
should be increased in society.
Overall, the challenge of dealing with climate change-induced disturbances in
forest management and forestry is pan-European (Jandl 2020). Different adaptation
and risk management actions may be needed, depending on geographical region and
time span, to maintain the sustainable provisioning of different ecosystem services
for society, and to increase the forest resilience. The role of forests in climate change
mitigation should also be considered in adaptation and risk management. This is
because forests contribute greatly to climate change mitigation through sequester-
ing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in forest ecosystems and wood-based
products, the latter also substituting for fossil-intensive resources (Kauppi et al.
2018). The intensity of forest management practices and the severity of natural dis-
turbances may significantly affect the carbon sequestration (and stock) in forests as
a result of changes in forest structure (e.g. age and tree species composition).
Consequently, changes in forest structure will indirectly affect climate regulation
through changes in forest albedo and latent heat fluxes, biogenic volatile organic
compounds and aerosols (e.g. Thom et al. 2017).
3.4 Research Implications
There are large uncertainties in predicting future climate and its impacts on European
forests and forestry. This is due to uncertainties in global developments in future
greenhouse gas emissions, which are greatly affected by the level of success of cli-
mate change mitigation. Therefore, such uncertainties should be considered in cli-
mate change impact and adaptation studies, by using several alternative climate
projections in simulation-based scenario analyses. In order to define climate-smart
(and adaptive) risk management strategies, there is a need for a more holistic under-
standing of how the prevailing climatic conditions, forest structure, forest manage-
ment (strategies) and severity of climate change, together with the associated
increases in natural disturbances, may affect the provisioning of multiple ecosystem
services (e.g. timber, biodiversity and the recreational values of forests) and climate
regulation for different geographical regions and time spans. Climate change will
affect, in addition to the physiological conditions of trees and tree defence mecha-
nisms against natural enemies, the distribution and population dynamics of those
enemies, and this needs to be understood in greater detail. In the current world of
uncertainty, we should seek different ways to simultaneously improve the provi-
sioning of different ecosystem services for society, the resilience of forests and their
climate benefits.
3.5 Key Messages
• There are large uncertainties in the projected climate change and its impacts on
European forests and forestry for different regions and time spans, due to large
uncertainties in the level of success of climate change mitigation efforts.
• In general, forest growth is projected to increase in Northern Europe, as opposed
to Southern Europe.
• Climate change may induce multiple abiotic and biotic damage risks in forests
and forestry throughout Europe via windstorms, drought, forest fires, bark beetle
outbreaks and wood-decaying fungus diseases.
• The uncertainties relating to climate change and the increasing multiple risks to
forests and forestry should be considered when adapting forest management and
forestry to climate change in order to increase the resilience of forests against
different abiotic and biotic disturbances.
• The necessary adaptation and risk management measures may differ, depending
on geographical region and time span.
Acknowledgments Heli Peltola thanks the financial support from the OPTIMAM project (grant
number 317741) funded by the Academy of Finland.
References
Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M et al (2010) A

global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change
risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259:660–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001
Asikainen A, Viiri H, Neuvonen S, Nevalainen S, Lintunen J, Laturi J, … Ruosteenoja K (2019)
Ilmastonmuutos ja metsätuhot – Analyysi ilmaston lämpenemisen seurauksista Suomen osalta
[Climate change and forest damage in Finland]. The Finnish climate change panel, Helsinki,
Finland. https://www.ilmastopaneeli.fi/wp-content/up-loads/2019/01/Ilmastopaneeli_
Mets%C3%A4tuhoraportti_tiivistelm%C3%A4-1.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2021
Battisti A, Larsson S (2015) Climate change and insect pest distribution range. In: Björkman C,
Niemelä P (eds) Climate change and insect pests, Climate Change Series. CABI, Wallingford,
pp 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643786.0001
Battisti A, Stastny M, Netherer S, Robinet C, Schopf A, Roques A, Larsson S (2005) Expansion
of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures.
Ecol Appl 15:2084–2096. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1903
Bejer B (1988) The nun moth in European forests. In: Berryman AA (ed) Dynamics of forest insect
populations. Springer, Boston, pp 211–231
Christiansen E, Bakke A (1988) The spruce bark beetle of Eurasia. In: Berryman AA (ed)
Dynamics of forest insect populations, patterns, causes, and implications. Plenum Press,
New York, pp 480–505
Díaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Peltola H (2020) Multifunctional comparison of differ-
ent management strategies in boreal forests. For An Int J For Res 93(1):84–95. https://doi.
org/10.1093/for-estry/cpz053
European Environment Agency (2017) Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe
2016. An indicator based report. European Environment Agency Report 1/2017. https://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-im-pacts-and-vulnerability-2016. Accessed 25
Jan 2021
Fält-Nardmann JJ, Ruohomäki K, Tikkanen OP, Neuvonen S (2018) Cold hardiness of Lymantria
monacha and L. dispar (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) eggs to extreme winter temperatures: impli-
cations for predicting climate change impacts. Ecol Entomol 43(4):422–430. https://doi.
org/10.1111/een.12515
Feser F, Barcikowska M, Krueger O, Schenk F, Weissea R, Xiae L (2015) Review article:
storminess over the North Atlantic and northwestern Europe – a review. Q J R Meteorol Soc
141:350–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2364
Garbelotto M, Gonthier P (2013) Biology, epidemiology, and control of Heterobasidion
species worldwide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:39–59. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-phyto-082712-102225
Godefroid M, Meurisse N, Groenen F, Kerdelhué C, Rossi JP (2020) Current and future distri-
bution of the invasive oak processionary moth. Biol Invasions 22(2):523–534. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10530-019-02108-4
Groenemeijer P, Vajda A, Lehtonen I, Kämäräinen M, Venäläinen A, Gregow H., … Púčik T
(2016) Present and future probability of meteorological and hydrological hazards in Europe.
Technical Report Report number: 608166-D 2.5, 165 pp. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft.
nl/uuid:906c812d-bb49-408a-aeed-f1a900ad8725
Hanes C, Wang X, Jain P, Parisien M-A, Little J, Flannigan M (2019) Fire-regime changes in
Canada over the last half century. Can J For Res 49(3):256–269. https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjfr-2018-0293
Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs GJ, Zimmermann NE (2013) Climate
change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forestland. Nat Clim Chang
3:203. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1687
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2018)

Effects of forest management and harvesting intensity on the timber supply from Finnish
forests in a changing climate. Can J For Res 48(10):1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjfr-2018-0118
Herfindal I, Tremblay JP, Hester AJ, Lande US, Wam HK (2015) Associational relationships at
multiple spatial scales affect forest damage by moose. For Ecol Manag 348:97–107. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.045
Hlásny T, Krokene P, Liebhold A, Montagné-Huck C, Müller J, Qin H., … Viiri H (2019) Living
with bark beetles: impacts, outlook and management options. From science to policy 8.
European Forest Institute https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2019/efi_
fstp_8_2019.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2021
Hlásny T, Zimova S, Merganicova K, Stepanek P, Modlinger R, Turcani M (2021) Devastating out-
break of bark beetles in the Czech Republic: drivers, impacts, and management implications.
For Ecol Manag 490:119075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119075
Hyvönen R, Ågren GI, Linder S, Persson T, Cotrufo MF, Ekblad A et al (2007) The likely impact
of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon
sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol
173:463–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01967.x
Ikonen V-P, Kilpeläinen A, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2020) Effects
of using certain tree species in forest regeneration on regional wind damage risks in Finnish
boreal forests under different CMIP5 projections. Eur J For Res 139:685–707. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10342-020-01276-6
Jactel H, Petit J, Desprez-Loustau M-L, Delzon S, Piou D, Battisti A, Koricheva J (2011) Drought
effects on damage by forest insects and pathogens: a meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol 18(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02512.x
Jakoby O, Lischke H, Wermelinger B (2019) Climate change alters elevational phenology patterns
of the European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus). Glob Change Biol 25(12):4048–4063.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14766
Jandl R (2020) Climate-induced challenges of Norway spruce in northern Austria. Trees For
People 1:100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100008
Jenkins M, Runyon J, Fettig C, Page W, Bentz B (2014) Interactions among the mountain pine
beetle, fires, and fuels. For Sci 60(3):489–501. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-017
Joint Research Centre (2015) Forest fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2014. JRC
Technical Reports. Joint report of JRC and Directorate-General Environment. https://doi.
org/10.2788/224527
Jönsson AM, Harding S, Bärring L, Ravn HP (2007) Impact of climate change on the population
dynamics of Ips typographus in southern Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 146:70–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.05.006
Kauppi P, Hanewinkel M, Lundmark T, Nabuurs G-J, Peltola H, Trasobares A, Hetemäki L (2018)
Climate smart forestry in Europe. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/
files/publication-bank/2018/Cli-mate_Smart_Forestry_in_Europe.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2021
Kjellström E, Nikulin G, Strandberg G, Christensen O, Jacob D, Keuler K et al (2018) European
climate change at global mean temperature increases of 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial con-
ditions as simulated by the EURO- CORDEX regional climate models. Earth Syst Dynam
9:459–478. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-459-2018
Kollas C, Gutsch M, Hommel R, Lasch-Born P, Suckow F (2018) Mistletoe-induced growth reduc-
tions at the forest stand scale. Tree Physiol 38:735–744. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx150
La Porta N, Capretti P, Thomsen IM, Kasanen R, Hietala AM, Von Weissenberg K (2008) Forest
pathogens with higher damage potential due to climate change in Europe. Can J Plant Pathol
30:177–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2008.10540534
Lehtonen I, Kämäräinen M, Gregow H, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2016a) Heavy snow loads in
Finnish forests respond regionally asymmetrically to projected climate change. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 16:2259–2271. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2259-2016
Lehtonen I, Venäläinen A, Kämäräinen M, Peltola H, Gregow H (2016b) Risk of large-scale

forest fires in boreal forests in Finland under changing climate. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
16:239–253. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-239-2016
Lehtonen I, Venäläinen A, Kämäräinen M, Asikainen A, Laitila J, Anttila P, Peltola H (2019)
Projected decrease in wintertime bearing capacity on different forest and soil types in Finland
under a warming climate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:1611–1631. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-23-1611-2019
Lindelöw A, Schroeder M (2008) The storm “Gudrun” and the spruce bark beetle in
Sweden. Forstschutz 29 Aktuell 44:5–7. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/267208040.
Marini L, Økland B, Jönsson AM, Bentz B, Carroll A, Forster B et al (2017) Climate drivers of
bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests. Ecography 40:1426–1435. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02769
Melin M, Viiri H, Tikkanen O-P, Elfving R, Neuvonen S (2020) From a rare inhabitant into a
potential pest – status of the nun moth in Finland based on pheromone trapping. Silva Fenn
54(1):10262. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10262
Migliavacca M, Dosio A, Camia A, Hobourg R, Houston-Durrant T, Kaiser JW et al (2013)
Modeling biomass burning and related carbon emissions during the 21st century in Europe. J
Geophys Res Biogeosci 118:1732–1747. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002444
Nordlander G, Mason EG, Hjelm K, Nordenhem H, Hellqvist C (2017) Influence of climate and
forest management on damage risk by the pine weevil Hylobius abietis in northern Sweden.
Silva Fenn 51(5). doi:10.14214/:sf.7751
Nykänen M-L, Peltola H, Quine CP, Kellomäki S, Broadgate M (1997) Factors affecting snow
damage of trees with particular reference to European conditions. Silva Fenn 31(2):193–213
Öhrn P, Långström B, Lindelöw Å, Björklund N (2014) Seasonal flight patterns of Ips typographus
in southern Sweden and thermal sums required for emergence. Agric For Entomol 16:1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12044
Pretzsch H, Forrester DI, Bauhus J (2017) Mixed-species forests. Springer, Berlin
Reyer C, Lasch-Born P, Suckow F, Gutsch M, Murawski A, Pilz T (2014) Projections of regional
changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by
climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann For Sci 71(2):211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13595-013-0306-8
Reyer C, Bathgate S, Blennow K, Borges JG, Bugmann H, Delzon S et al (2017) Are forest distur-
bances amplifying or cancelling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European
forests? Environ Res Lett 12(3):034027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef1
Romashkin I, Neuvonen S, Tikkanen O-P (2020) Northward shift in temperature sum isoclines
may favour Ips typographus outbreaks in European Russia. Agric For Entomol 22:238–249.
https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12377
Rossi JP, Imbault V, Lamant T, Rousselet J (2016) A citywide survey of the pine processionary
moth Thaumetopoea pityocampa spatial distribution in Orléans (France). Urban For Urban
Green 20:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UFUG.2016.07.015
Ruosteenoja K, Jylhä K, Kämäräinen M (2016a) Climate projections for Finland under the RCP forc-
ing scenarios. Geo- physica 51(17–50) http://www.geophysica.fi/pdf/geophysica_2016_51_1-
2_017_ruosteenoja.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2021
Ruosteenoja K, Räisänen J, Venäläinen A, Kämäräinen M (2016b) Projections for the duration and
degree days of the thermal growing season in Europe derived from CMIP5 model output. Int J
Climatol 36:3039–3055. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4535
Ruosteenoja K, Markkanen T, Venäläinen A, Räisänen P, Peltola H (2018) Seasonal soil mois-
ture and drought occurrence in Europe in CMIP5 projections for the 21st century. Clim Dyn
50:1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3671-4
Ruosteenoja K, Vihma T, Venäläinen A (2019) Projected changes in European and North Atlantic
seasonal wind climate derived from CMIP5 simulations. J Clim 32:6467–6490. https://doi.
org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0023.1
Schelhaas M-J, Nabuurs G-J, Schuck A (2003) Natural disturbances in the European for-
ests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob Change Biol 9:1620–1633. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x
Seidl R, Schelhaas M-J, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe
and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4(9):806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate2318
Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G et al (2017) Forest
disturbances under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 7:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate3303
Senf C, Seidl R (2021) Storm and fire disturbances in Europe: distribution and trends. Glob Change
Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15679
Szmidla H, Tkaczyk M, Plewa R, Tarwacki G, Sierota Z (2019) Impact of common mistletoe
(Viscum album L.) on scots pine forests — a call for action. Forests 10(847). https://doi.
org/10.3390/f10100847
Thom D, Rammer W, Seidl R (2017) The impact of future forest dynamics on climate: interactive
effects of changing vegetation and disturbance regimes. Ecol Monogr 87:665–684. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ecm.1272
Turco M, Rosa-Cánovas JJ, Bedia J, Jerez S, Montávez JP, Llasat MC, Provenzale A (2018)
Exacerbated fires in Medi- terranean Europe due to anthropogenic warming projected
with non-stationary climate-fire models. Nat Commun 9:3821. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-018-06358-z
Valinger E, Lundqvist L (1992) Influence of thinning and nitrogen fertilization on the frequency of
snow and wind induced stand damage in forests. Scott For 46:311–332
van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K et al (2011) The
representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Vega J, Vega JM, Moneo I (2011) Skin reactions on exposure to the pine processionary caterpillar
(Thaumetopoea pityocampa). Actas Dermosifiliogr (English Ed) 102(9):658–667
Venäläinen A, Korhonen N, Koutsias N, Xystrakis F, Urbieta IR, Moreno JM (2014) Temporal
variations and change in forest fire danger in Europe for 1960–2012. Nat Hazards Earth Syst
Sci 14:1477–1490. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1477-2014
Venäläinen A, Lehtonen I, Ruosteenoja K (2019) Projections of future climate for Europe, Uruguay
and China with implications on forestry. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Reports 2019:3.
https://doi.org/10.35614/isbn.9789523360853
Venäläinen A, Lehtonen I, Laapas M, Ruosteenoja K, Tikkanen O-P, Viiri H, Ikonen V-P, Peltola H
(2020) Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: a litera-
ture review. Glob Change Biol 26:4178–4196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183
Walker XJ, Baltzer JL, Cumming SG, Day NJ, Ebert C, Goetz S et al (2019) Increasing wild-
fires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature 572:520–523. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-019-1474-y
Chapter 4
Outlook for the Forest-Based Bioeconomy
Elias Hurmekoski, Lauri Hetemäki, and Janne Jänis
Abstract The state of the world’s managed forests is determined by the societal
demands for wood resources and other ecosystem services. The forest-based sector
is experiencing a number of structural changes, which makes the task of looking
ahead important, but challenging. One of the main trends in the forest-based indus-
tries is diversification. On one hand, this refers to the emergence of new factors
influencing the demand for forest-based products, which leads to substitution
between forest-based products and alternative products. On the other hand, it refers
to new market opportunities for forest-based industries in, for example, the con-
struction, textiles, packaging, biochemicals and biofuels markets. As the importance
of some of the traditional forest-based industries, such as communication papers, is
declining, and new opportunities are simultaneously emerging, the sector will not
necessarily be dominated by single sectors in the long term. However, research
illuminating the possible impacts of the expected structural changes of the forest-
based sector remains scarce. The uncertainties in the future outlook of the forest-
based sector also imply great uncertainties in the demand for roundwood globally,
and by extension, the extent of trade-offs between different ecosystem services and
land uses.
Keywords Demand · Foresight · Forest-based-products markets · Forest-sector

modelling · New forest-based products · Structural change
E. Hurmekoski (*)
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
L. Hetemäki
J. Jänis

56 E. Hurmekoski et al.
4.1 Background: Forest-Based Sector Outlook Studies
The outlook for the forest-based sector has great importance through the impacts
that the sector has on the state of forests and the amenities that forests provide, such
as forest-based products,1 energy, employment, biodiversity, the carbon cycle and
water management. Without understanding the demand for forest-based products,
and the ensuing demand for roundwood, it is very difficult to assess, for example,
the impacts that strategies and policies may have on the forest-based sector or on
society. Nor is it possible to assess the future state of the forests.
The forest-based sector has a long history in producing outlook studies, extend-
ing back to the 1950s (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and
Agriculture Organization [UNECE/FAO] 2021). The purposes of forest- sector out-
look studies have been to examine long-term economic, social, institutional and
technological trends to support policy and strategy planning, depict the range of
choices available, and describe the alternative scenarios that might arise as a result
of these choices (UNECE/FAO 2011). The focus has traditionally been on trends in
the forest-based-products markets and the availability of wood resources, conclud-
ing that the demand for forest-based products is expected to continue to steadily
increase, which results in a steady increase in the level of harvesting (e.g. Mantau
et al. 2010).
In recent UNECE/FAO outlook studies, the focus has been more on ‘what if’
analyses, describing the potential impact of, for example, changes in the wood sup-
ply of, or demand for, forest-based products (UNECE/FAO 2011, 2021). The most-
recent outlook study took the perspective of structural changes and their impacts
across the global forest sector, including climate-change mitigation and adaptation
(UNECE/FAO 2021). This broadening perspective is necessary in order to meet the
changing information needs of policy-makers and stakeholders in the increasingly
complex forest-based sector.
Indeed, there are major structural changes associated with the stagnating or
declining demand for some of the traditional forest-based products, such as graphic
papers and sawnwood. However, a number of innovations are also expanding the
product portfolios of the forest-based industries. These changes may be the largest
structural changes in a century, comparable to the uptake of wood fibres to replace
rags in paper-making in the late nineteenth century. However, the methodological
approaches of long-term outlook studies were adopted in an era of constant growth,
and are now facing difficulties in capturing the changes taking place in the forest-
products markets of the twenty-first century. Due to the lack of research and the
ongoing structural changes, the outlook for forest-based-products markets remains
in many ways a great unknown.
1
‘Forest-based product’ refers to all products made from wood raw materials and can be used
interchangeably with the concepts of ‘forest product’, ‘wood-based product’, ‘forest-based bio-
product’, etc. As the term ‘wood product’ may sometimes refer to solid wood industries specifi-
cally, here we use the term ‘forest-based product’ for consistency.
4 Outlook for the Forest-Based Bioeconomy 57
The purpose of this section is to introduce and assess some of the prominent
trends and recent changes in the forest- based sector, and to examine their implica-
tions in relation to the future outlook. This section does not provide a systematic
outlook, but synthesises the current knowledge and raises questions to guide future
endeavours.
Box 4.1 Why Do We Need Future-Oriented Market Research?

The forest-based-products markets of the twenty-first century differ signifi-
cantly from their twentieth century counterparts. The forest-based sector, as
well as the operating environment, has become more fragmented and unpre-
dictable. The customary market structures are gradually evolving, due to, for
example, the diversification of product portfolios and value chains, diminish-
ing industry boundaries, changing consumption patterns, and strengthening
environmental values in business and society. This creates a need to look
ahead, but at the same time, it makes this task evermore challenging.
Obviously, there is no way to directly study the future, since hypotheses
regarding the future cannot be validated in the present. This is why academic
future-oriented research is mainly not about predicting what is going to hap-
pen, but rather evaluating what could happen, and what would be the conse-
quences if it did (i.e. ‘what if’ analysis), as well as what should happen to
reach certain outcomes. Together, these guiding questions refer to probable,
possible and preferable futures, which are considered to be the foundations of
futures studies (Bell 2003).
In one of the pioneering market foresight studies, an argument and accom-
panying evidence were presented for the case that the rise in electronic media
would significantly impact the communication-paper market (i.e. newsprint)
in particular (Hetemäki 1999). The newsprint markets in North America have
plummeted further and more rapidly than the study anticipated, yet at the time
of publishing, these early warning signals were commonly ignored. Moreover,
the study drew attention to the inability of the prevailing long-term outlook
studies to capture the structural change in the newsprint markets.
By 2020, these structural changes have become evident. This poses chal-
lenges for research, as the conventional models used for long-term projections
no longer sufficiently capture the market drivers, such as the factors driving
substitution or the demand for new forest-based products.
In future-oriented research, it makes sense to pursue multiple approaches
to obtain as comprehensive a picture as possible. One increasingly popular
approach has been normative in nature––defining the means to reach set tar-
gets (e.g. backcasting). As it is not the role of a researcher to set value-laden
goals, such research has to be participative. Moreover, the targets are often
largely accepted, such as implementing the Paris Agreement or the UN
Sustainable Development Goals. This is why future-oriented market research
should increasingly be coupled with environmental impact assessment as a
(continued)
Box 4.1 (continued)

means of grasping the role and potential of the expanding forest sector in the
transition to a more sustainable society.
The purpose of academic market research is to critically examine estab-
lished thought patterns, present new questions, indicate knowledge gaps,
unveil broader contexts, and to evoke justified views on probable, possible
and preferable futures and their implications. In academic research, the meth-
ods and data need to be transparent, and the studies need to be repeatable and
able to pass the peer-review process. However, the major concern with regard
to the academic research on forest-based-products markets is the lack of it
(Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2016). The subject area is dominated by consult-
ing company studies, for which there is certainly a demand, but they are not a
substitute for academic research. As shown in this chapter, there are many
important open questions associated with future market developments and
their impacts. Thus, there is a clear need for research related to the outlook for
forest-based-products markets.
4.2 Forest-Based-Products Markets in the Bioeconomy Era
4.2.1 Forest-Based-Products Markets
in the Twenty-First Century
Forest-based-products markets refer to all industrial activities around the use of

wood. Of the global growing stock of 531 billion m3 (FAO 2018), only around 4
billion m3, or 0.75%, is annually harvested, around half of which goes to industrial
uses and half to energy (Table 4.1). The production value of the industry and energy
use of wood was estimated to be approximately US$950 billion in 2018, based on
FAOSTAT data. This compares, for example, to the entire global turnover in the
textile industry, or the sum of the revenues of the following companies in 2018:
Apple, Amazon, General Motors, Microsoft, Bank of America, IBM and General
Electric. Importantly, these figures only refer to the core industrial activities and do
not include various downstream industries and related services. Clearly, the forest
sector plays a significant role in the global economy and employment, besides heav-
ily influencing the state of the world’s forests.
Wood is used for various purposes, such as for buildings, furniture, packaging,
communication, decoration, clothing, hygiene, vehicles, paints, glues, detergents,
fuel, heat, medicine, feed and food. Forest-based industries are typically separated
into the solid-wood industries, comprising sawnwood, wood-based panels, furniture
and engineered wood products (EWPs), and the chemical forest industries, compris-
ing pulp, paper and paperboard. There is little in common between the solid and
chemical forest industries, save for the raw material supply.
Table 4.1 Global forest-products production in 2018

Production quantity (million tons) Production value (billion US$)
Industrial roundwood 1014* –
Wood fuel 972* 146
Paper and paperboard 409 374
Wood pulp 188 137
Sawnwood 246* 135
Wood-based panels 204* 159
Total – 950
* Converted from m3
Source: FAOSTAT
Fig. 4.1 China’s share of the global consumption of major forest products. (Data: FAOSTAT)
There have been many visible changes in the global forest-products markets in
the twenty-first century. For example, the global competitive advantages have expe-
rienced a clear shift, with a remarkable share of forest-industry investments going
to fast-growing markets in Asia and low-cost-production regions, such as South
America. The increase in demand for forest products in the 2000s originated almost
entirely in Asia (FAOSTAT), with China’s share of the global consumption having
grown to more than 20% of all major forest products by 2018 (Fig. 4.1).
A more profound, yet less tangible, change is the structural change in the demand
patterns of the forest-based industries. In the twentieth century, the global demand
for forest products was steadily increasing, driven by increasing incomes, popula-
tions and urbanisation. However, in the twenty-first century, many of the forest-based
products no longer seem to follow the pattern of stable and predictable growth of the
last century. This is a consequence of various structural changes in demand, driven
by the substitution of forest-based products for, or by, competing products. For
example, global graphic- papers production (≈ consumption) declined between 2007
and 2018 by almost a quarter (24%), according to FAOSTAT data, due to its substitu-
tion by electronic media. On the other hand, in the same period, the production of
dissolving pulp has grown by 2.5 times, driven by textile industry needs.
Important drivers of structural change also include the Sustainable Development
Goals (UN 2015a) and the Paris Climate Agreement (UN 2015b). These set interna-
tionally agreed goals that encourage sustainable production and consumption. As
forests constitute the most important, non-food, renewable land resource, increasing
interest in utilising forests as a substitute for fossil-based and other non-renewable
feedstock materials can be expected.
As a response to the maturing or declining traditional forest-products markets
and the emerging opportunities, new forest-based products are being developed.
Thus, it is conceivable that, within a few decades, there will be a larger number of
forest-based-products categories, although none of these will dominate the sector to
the extent that paper and solid- wood products did in the last century, particularly in
terms of value added (Jonsson et al. 2017). Moreover, with the new products, indus-
try boundaries may become increasingly indistinguishable, with the chemical,
energy, textile and forest industries using the same feedstocks and developing prod-
ucts for the same markets (Jonsson et al. 2017).
Based on these trends, a keyword for characterising the market development of
the forest-based products in the twenty-first century is diversification. Above all, the
term refers to the widening scope of the forest-based-products markets in terms of
product portfolios and value propositions. One can argue that the sawnwood indus-
tries are diversifying towards wood- based panels and EWPs, whilst the pulp and
paper industries are diversifying from communication papers towards packaging
paper grades and various biorefinery products.
Clearly, the outlook for the forest-based sector depends on whether we only con-
sider the traditional large-volume products, such as sawnwood and graphic papers,
or also the development of new forest-based products, such as textile fibres.
Capturing the influence of the latter can be tricky, as sectoral statistics are lagging
behind the restructuring of this industry. In particular, it is increasingly challenging
to measure the employment, turnover and value added based on wood raw materials
in the chemical, construction, textile and energy industries.
4.2.2 Characterising the Structural Change in Demand
Industrial evolution is a continuous process that serves to maintain the vitality of the
market economy, as already noted in the 1940s by Joseph Schumpeter, who coined
the term ‘creative destruction’. Here, we briefly introduce a few analytical concepts
so as to characterise the structural changes occurring in the forest sector in the
twenty-first century––evidence of ongoing creative destruction.
4.2.2.1 Demand Elasticity and Substitution
By the term ‘demand’, we refer to the amount or value of a good consumed. A use-
ful empirical approximation of demand is ‘apparent consumption’, defined as pro-
duction + imports – exports. The terms ‘demand’ and ‘consumption’ are therefore
regarded as synonyms.
As most forest-based products are intermediate goods, models quantify forest-
based-products consumption as derived demand. Essentially, this means that the
demand for forest-based products is a function of the same factors that affect the
demand for the final uses of the products (Klemperer 2003). In empirical research,
the demand determinants for wood- based products are typically reduced to price
and income.
One way to demonstrate the existence of a structural change is to observe the
relationship between available income and the demand for forest-based products.
This leads us to the concept of demand elasticity. While elasticities can be attributed
to any demand determinant, they are typically associated with price and income.
The demand for a normal good increases when income increases and decreases
when income decreases, whereas, for an inferior good, an increase in income results
in a reduction in this consumption and vice versa (Varian 2010). Forest-based prod-
ucts are generally regarded as normal goods (Kangas and Baudin 2003), except for
newsprint and printing and writing papers (Hetemäki 2005).
Indeed, the income and price elasticities remained remarkably stable throughout
the twentieth century, when the markets enjoyed a period of relatively stable growth,
and there were no major technical innovations making competing goods more desir-
able. Consequently, income and price have been able to explain and predict the level
and rate of demand remarkably well at the global level. However, the power of these
two predictors diminish, the more disaggregated markets and more recent data are
analysed.
In the twenty-first century, the demand for forest-based products has no longer
developed in line with the gross domestic product (GDP) for some of the most sig-
nificant forest products. This suggests that income cannot be the only demand
shifter. For example, the global production of sawnwood and wood-based panels
has exhibited markedly different patterns in 2000–2018 compared to 1980–1999,
relative to per-capita GDP growth (Fig. 4.2). In the EU, one can observe an apparent
decoupling of demand from the GDP, or a structural break or discontinuity in the
GDP elasticity, for many traditional forest-based-products markets (Fig. 4.3). The
underlying causes have been studied only in the context of graphic papers, which
are being substituted by electronic media (Hetemäki 1999; Hetemäki and Obersteiner
2001), and bioenergy, which has been substituting for fossil energy in the EU due to
climate and energy policies (Moiseyev et al. 2013). Despite some of this apparent
turbulence possibly being caused by the historically long economic downturn,
therefore making it transitory, it may equally become more exaggerated in the future
due to the introduction of new forest- based products and new end uses, as well as
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Index 2000 = 100

280 280
Wood Panels
Trend Forecast >
240 240
200 200
GDP
160 Sawnwood Packag & 160
Paperboard
120 120
Pulp
80 80
Wood Fuel
40 40
80 85 90 95 00 05 10 15 20 25 30
Fig. 4.2 Per-capita global consumption of forest products versus GDP in 1980–2018 and the trend
forecasts (2010–2018 trend) to 2030. (Data: FAOSTAT and World Bank)
Index 2000 = 100

200 Wood Fuel
200
Panels
160 160
GDP
120 Packaging 120
Sawnwood
80 Pulp 80
40 40
Graphics
Papers
0 0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Fig. 4.3 Consumption of wood-based products and GDP in Europe (excluding Russia) in
1992–2018 and the trend forecasts (2010–2018 trend) to 2030. (Data: FAOSTAT and World Bank)
The lack of research literature on substitution, in the context of forest-products

markets, is striking, given the structural changes that took place in the graphic
papers markets in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries some decades ago (recent exceptions being described in Latta
et al. 2016; Rougieux and Damette 2018). Moreover, the commonly stated goal of
‘shifting towards bioeconomy’ would implicitly require the large-scale substitution
of feedstock materials, and yet the conventional demand equations cannot fully cap-
ture this substitution. The implications of this knowledge gap are further under-
scored in Chap. 7.
4.2.2.2 Product Life-Cycles
The diversification of the sector is closely related to the product life-cycle, compris-
ing four to five stages–– introduction, growth, maturity, decline and, in some cases,
renewal (e.g. Routley et al. 2013). During the period of introduction and growth, the
goods become increasingly competitive through decreasing production costs from
learning- by-doing (Arrow 1962; Rosenberg 1982). At the maturity stage, produc-
tivity improvements are increasingly difficult to gain, and in the decline stage, the
product starts to lose the markets to emerging products or technologies (Anderson
and Tushman 1990). In some cases, the growth phase may be renewed after a period
of stagnation or decline, as a result of changes in demand determinants or improve-
ments in the established technology––this has been the case for dissolving pulp, for
example.
The demand for most woodworking and pulp and paper industry products has
become inelastic; that is, the market growth rate has fallen below the GDP growth
rate (Rougieux and Damette 2018). Moreover, the prices of the end products have
been trending downwards, while the production costs have been increasing, with the
price differentials between suppliers being marginal, the switching costs being low,
and the negotiating power lying with the customers (Uronen 2010; Hetemäki et al.
2013). These point to the conclusion that many of the forest-products markets have
become commoditised. At the same time, in the big picture, fossil-based energy is
likely to hit the maturity stage in the coming decades, due to environmental values
and regulations, which will lead to substitution by alternative energy and material
feedstocks, including forest biomass.
Indeed, one can name wood-based products for all phases of the typical product
life-cycle, as demonstrated in Fig. 4.4. For example, cross-laminated timber (CLT)
is clearly in the growth phase, as demonstrated by the double-digit growth rates,
irrespective of periods of negative or stagnating GDP growth rate (Hetemäki and
Hurmekoski 2016). In the next section, we focus particularly on the markets of
emerging wood-based products.
4.2.3 Emerging Markets
4.2.3.1 Defining New Forest-Based Products
There is no clear or established definition for new forest-based products (Cai et al.
2013; Näyhä et al. 2014; Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2016). The concept can refer to
products in the introduction or growth phases of the product life-cycle, but also to
products with renewed growth in demand, such as dissolving pulp. Thus, a new
forest-based product does not necessarily have to be a novel product, or based on a
novel technology––it can also be an old product with a new market environment,
such as the constrained supply of competing feedstock materials, or with enough
incremental improvements to drive growth, such as a lighter weight (Hurmekoski
Wood-based panels
Dissolving pulp
Second-generation biofuels
Alternative textile fibres
Pellets
Market share
Glued laminated timber

Platform chemicals
Hygiene papers
Packaging papers
Sawnwood
Communication papers
CLT
Bioplastics
Introduction Growth Maturity Decline / Renewal

Time / Stage of a product life-cycle
Fig. 4.4 Approximate market location of selected wood-based products based on product life-
cycle in 2020
et al. 2018a). Thus, one could describe new wood-based products as products for
which the demand is determined mainly by drivers other than economic activity
(GDP), bar short-term economic cycles. Such a classification is naturally prone to
interpretation in terms of where to draw the line. For example, compared to CLT and
dissolving pulp, the growth of the fibre-based packaging sector, as a whole, is not
necessarily fast enough to qualify as a new forest-based product, even if some of the
emerging packaging applications are novel, such as cups containing no fossil plas-
tics. These definition attempts may at least demonstrate the diversity of the forest-
based- products markets in the twenty-first century.
Literature on the diversification of the sector and new forest-based products
remains relatively scarce, particularly from the perspective of market potential (e.g.
Guerrero and Hansen 2018). Based on the literature that is available, however, some
of the most important emerging markets appear to be construction, textiles, chemi-
cals, advanced biofuels, and plastics and packaging (Bio-based Industries
Consortium 2013; Graichen et al. 2016; Antikainen et al. 2017; Kruus and Hakala
2017; Schipfer et al. 2017). In the following, we briefly review these markets, as
summarised in Table 4.2.
4.2.3.2 Construction Markets
The outlook for wood construction is regarded as almost unanimously positive,

which is partly due to the enormous and still-growing size of the market, and partly
due to claims of the superior environmental performance of wood products (e.g.
European Commission 2018). Wood construction, particularly on a small scale,
4
Table 4.2 Markets for new forest-based products

Construction Textiles Chemicals Fuels Plastics and packaging
Market size in 28,000 Mt. (21,500 Mt); 130 Mt. (90 Mt) 600 Mt. (330 Mt) 2300 Mt. (2100 Mt) 130 Mt. (72 Mt)
2030 (in 2015) 3.16 billion m2 (2.24
billion m2)
Technologies / - EWPs (CLT, - new solvents for - drop-in substitutes for - renewable diesel: - wood–plastic
products laminated- veneer dissolving pulp: e.g. petrochemicals: Based on distilling tall composites (WPCs):
lumber) IONCELL-F Ethylene oil Extrusion and injection
- industrially - new fibre-spinning - smart drop-in - ethanol: Based on moulding
prefabricated technologies: substitutes for fermenting sugars - pulp-based, paper-
construction elements e.g. Spinnova petrochemicals: (hemicelluloses and resembling films for
(including modular Succinic acid, celluloses) flexible packaging
elements) butanediol - other plastic-
- concrete admixtures - dedicated bio-based resembling wood or
(lignin) chemicals: Lactic acid, wood-fibre-based
furfural materials for rigid

packaging
Target markets - residential and non- - garments - main downstream - energy carrier for - rigid and flexible
and substitutions residential buildings - substituting cotton, markets, including transport, particularly plastic substitutes: Food,
- substituting for polyester and viscose plastics, food and feed long-haul truck healthcare and cosmetics
concrete, steel and ingredients, and transport, maritime packaging, carrier bags
established wood- pharmaceutical transport and jet fuel - WPCs: Decking
construction industries - substituting first- (mostly substituting for
technologies in the - substituting first- generation biofuels and tropical wood), car
load-bearing frames of generation (starch- fossil fuels interiors (mostly
buildings based) biochemicals and substituting for plastics)
petrochemicals
(continued)
65
Table 4.2 (continued)
66

Main drivers - efficiency gains in - ‘cellulose gap’–– - major firms targeting - climate and energy - growth in population,
industrial prefabrication Constrained farming area renewable feedstocks policies GDP, e-commerce and
- favourable policies in for cotton due to land - co-production with - crude oil and CO2 price take-away products
certain regions competition with food biofuels in the long run - rising polymer prices
production, coupled with - policies to restrict the
rapid growth in demand for use of plastics
textiles
- large freshwater
consumption in cotton
irrigation in arid areas
Main barriers - risk perceptions of key - some of the technical - REACH1 and other - feedstock availability - uncertain legislative
decision-makers attributes (product regulations - for many processes, environment
(officers of main properties) of man-made - extensive validation conversion efficiency
contractor and developer cellulosic fibres (MMCFs) required for dedicated - investment and running
firms) compounds costs
- fragmented and path- - investment costs
dependent industry - path dependency of
structure petrochemical industries
Competing - low-emissions cement - cotton recycling - CO2 as a feedstock for - first- and third- - first- and third-
innovations - 3D printing of recycled technology chemicals generation fuels generation bioplastics
concrete and similar - other bio-based fibres, e.g. - first- and third- - electric engines - recycled or
based on spiders’ webs generation chemicals - hydrogen engines biodegradable plastics
- functional textiles, e.g. - natural fibre
antibacterial, anti-odour or composites
electrical properties
E. Hurmekoski et al.
4
Desirable product - no need for major - technical properties: - low cost - drop-in fuel: Existing WPC:
characteristics changes in construction Avoiding wrinkles and - non-hazardous and distribution - natural feel
practices electricity, good moisture non-toxic infrastructure and - easy maintenance
- no technical or absorption, etc. existing car fleet without packaging:
economic hazards - environmental properties: a need for major - biodegradability or
Avoiding hazardous modification recyclability
chemicals, less pollution, - lightness
increased recycling, etc. - product safety
Comparative - lightness of the - feedstock availability - interest towards - policy pull - reduced costs
advantages material, allowing (compared to virgin cotton) bio-based alternatives - does not directly compared to pure
efficient industrial - ability to convert existing - in smart drop-in and compete with food plastics
prefabrication and the pulp mills to dissolving dedicated chemicals, production - combination of
resulting productivity pulp reduced costs and/or - can be biodegradable, biodegradability and
benefits - environmental footprint environmental footprint free of aromatics and thermoplasticity
- renewable material Sulphur, and non-toxic
Position of - admixture supplier - raw material supplier - primary and secondary - end-product producer - packaging: Converter
forest- based - subcontractor (product (dissolving pulp) platform chemicals of shopping bags and
firms in the value or element supplier) - textile fibre producer solid packages
chain - main contractor or (MMCFs) - WPC: Converter of
developer (managing - yarn producer intermediate/end
whole value chain) products
a
Note: REACH––Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals––is an EU regulation covering the production and use of chemicals
Adapted from Hurmekoski et al. (2018a)
67
Fig. 4.5 Per-capita consumption of sawnwood and wood-based panels in two selected country
groups in the EU in 1992–2018. (Data: FAOSTAT)
such as single-family homes, can hardly be regarded as a new market, per se, but
new opportunities are emerging in the large-scale construction markets due to recent
innovations, as well as growing interest among decision-makers and industries (e.g.
FAO 2016). The market can also be approached from an entirely different perspec-
tive, such as using lignin to partly replace cement in concrete manufacturing (de Vet
et al. 2018).
The average market share of wood in small-scale construction in Europe has
remained below 10%, but it varies from above 80% in the Nordic countries to near
zero in many Southern European countries (Alderman 2013). Figure 4.5 shows that,
during the last couple of decades, the per-capita consumption of construction-
related forest-based products in the large European economies has only been around
one-third of the equivalent consumption in sparsely populated and densely forested
countries. Furthermore, there is no convergence in the per-capita consumption
between the high- and low-consumption regions, with a slight exception being mod-
est growth in the UK. Figure 4.5 also indicates that the per- capita consumption of
wood-based construction products in Austria, Finland and Sweden nearly doubled
from 1993 to 2007, after which the markets were severely affected by the global
economic downturn, and did not manage to reach the peak of 2007 in the decade
that followed. Looking at the trend forecast based on the trend of the 2010s, no
significant deviation would be expected.
Besides the long-lasting impact of the housing-market meltdown, the lack of
significant progress in the countries with a smaller wood-construction market share
arises from the various path dependencies of the construction sector (e.g. Mahapatra
and Gustavsson 2008). Construction markets are very much influenced by tradition,
culture and the availability of local resources. In this highly established market,
major drivers include cost competitiveness and being able to guarantee a low-risk
investment. That is, particularly in large-scale construction value chains, the actors
are generally unwilling to accept new practices that could potentially cause extra
work and associated costs in the short run (Arora et al. 2014). There is, however,
significant variance in the market potential between market segments and regions,
even from one city to the next.
The demand drivers are slightly different between the small-scale and large-scale
housing markets. Some of the technological- and business-model-related innova-
tions hold promise for changing the market prognosis in the large-scale construction
markets. In particular, the expansion of EWPs, together with industrial prefabrica-
tion, has allowed wood to increasingly compete with steel and concrete in large-
scale construction (Bühlmann and Schuler 2013; Hildebrandt et al. 2017), such as
in multi-family dwellings, office and industrial buildings, sports complexes,
additional-storey construction, and in infrastructure, such as bridges. Industrial pre-
fabrication refers to the off-site manufacturing of elements and components, which
allows the combination of several work phases in a single off-site location, poten-
tially resulting in productivity and quality gains, for example (Malmgren 2014).
However, even if wood-based industrial prefabrication could address many of the
pressures faced by the construction sector, including productivity, quality, safety
and environmental impact, the risks, as perceived by the construction project man-
agers, might outweigh these in the short term (Hurmekoski et al. 2018b). These
hindrances would need to be addressed, for example, by taking responsibility for a
larger share of the construction value chain, if firms seek rapid market growth
(Hurmekoski et al. 2018b). More-gradual change can happen through standardisa-
tion and winning trust through repeated positive experiences along the value chain
(Hurmekoski et al. 2018b).
The market is also influenced by policy. In Finland, wood construction has been
promoted by public targets, technology platforms and campaigns for several
decades. While the small-scale construction markets have already been saturated by
wood, the uptake of wood-frame, multi-storey construction remains modest, with
only a few percent market share. In the 2020s, the possible uptake of environmen-
tally stricter national regulations, driven by, for example, the national implementa-
tion of the voluntary EU framework for measuring the emissions of the construction
sector or supportive measures favouring wood in public procurement in the building
sector, may favour wood (Toppinen et al. 2018), besides spurring competition.
Changing consumer preferences may also influence the market uptake of modern
wood-construction practices. For example, wooden surfaces may have beneficial
impacts on human health through improved air quality and a stress- relieving atmo-
sphere (Muilu-Mäkelä et al. 2014), which has been found to be attractive to certain
types of consumers (Lähtinen et al. 2019). However, particularly in multi-storey
buildings, consumers tend to emphasise the size, location and price of the apart-
ments rather than the material of the structural frames. Here, consumer segmenta-
tion and business model innovations may be required.
4.2.3.3 Textile Markets
The global textile demand has been projected to grow from 90 Mt. in 2015 to more
than 250 Mt. in 2050 (Alkhagen et al. 2015). In the absence of more-efficient recy-
cling, polyester fibres are foreseen as having the strongest growth, followed by a
more stable increase in cellulosic fibres, while cotton production is expected to
remain at the current level (Antikainen et al. 2017), due to the increasing competi-
tion for land between cotton and food production (Hammerle 2011). Additionally,
the large demand for fresh water for cotton farming in arid areas lends a competitive
advantage to alternative cellulose supply sources (Shen et al. 2010), such as wood-
based MMCFs.
The MMCF market is still dominated by viscose, with a 79% share in 2018
(Textile Exchange 2019)––a product that was introduced already in the late nine-
teenth century. Currently, new MMCF processes based on alternative solvents,
such as IONCELL-F and Arbron, are being developed that aim to overcome the
weaknesses of contemporary viscose (Kruus and Hakala 2017). Of these more
advanced MMCFs, dissolving-pulp-based lyocell already had a 4% market share
of the MMCF markets in 2018, and it is expected to grow faster than viscose
(Textile Exchange 2019). If the development of new cellulosic fibres is successful,
the general growth rate of MMCFs can be higher than so far perceived, and could
expand into currently unattainable markets, such as sports textiles (Alkhagen
et al. 2015).
The main intermediate product in manufacturing MMCF is dissolving pulp.
Following a decline lasting the four decades since 1960, the global production of
dissolving pulp has grown from 2.8 Mt. in 2000 to 8.4 Mt. in 2018, reaching 4.5%
of the overall wood-pulp production volume (FAOSTAT). With a growing global
textile demand, an increasing number of kraft pulp mills could be converted to pro-
duce dissolving pulp. Dissolving pulp is currently exported in large quantities to
Asia, where most of the global textile production takes place. In principle, the value
added of wood-based industries from the textile market could be multiplied by mov-
ing downstream in the value chain to garment manufacturing (Hurmekoski
et al. 2018a).
According to Antikainen et al. (2017), the textile supply chains are typically long
and complex, while the use time of textiles is relatively short due to low pricing and
rapid fashion cycles. The industry is further characterised by a high share of labour
costs (Antikainen et al. 2017). As a consequence, textile manufacturing has been
off-shored from much of the global West to regions with lower wages––notably, the
Far East countries. Even considering the possibility of highly automated textile pro-
duction, Antikainen et al. (2017) did not foresee any substantial reshoring of gar-
ment manufacturing to the Western economies. Instead, the technology that is being
developed could be licenced to areas where textiles are produced, and recycled cot-
ton fibres could also be used as feedstock, along with wood pulp, for example
(Kruus and Hakala 2017).
4.2.3.4 Biorefining––Biochemical and Biofuel Markets
There is a clear need to find alternative feedstock materials for fossil coal, oil and
gas. Technically, almost all industrial materials made from fossil resources could be
substituted by their bio-based counterparts (de Jong et al. 2012). However, so far,
the most common uses of wood have been to exploit the solid wood or fibre struc-
ture, as some of the molecular structures have been too complex to be replicated by
engineers, and there are cheaper sources for the development of chemicals. This
setting could be slowly changing, due to constantly developing technologies, as
well as changes in the operating environment.
Biorefinery feedstocks can be divided into three generations––the higher the
generation, the less competition the feedstock poses for land use and food produc-
tion, but, at the same time, the higher the techno-economic barriers for the market
uptake (Sirajunnisa and Surendhiran 2016). First-generation biorefineries are
mostly based on food crops or plants that reduce the land available for food produc-
tion, which drives up the food price, particularly in developing countries (Naik et al.
2010). Typically, the first-generation biorefineries are also technologically less effi-
cient and have higher carbon footprints than second-generation biorefineries (Naik
et al. 2010). Second-generation biorefineries are based on lignocellulosic biomass,
such as wood and agricultural residues or waste streams, and do not directly com-
pete with food production. A third-generation biorefinery is yet to be established,
but it would be based on various algae that do not require any land surface for
cultivation.
So far, most market prognoses for biorefining concern the first-generation feed-
stocks (e.g. Aeschelmann and Carus 2015). Accordingly, the literature on lignocel-
lulosic biorefineries tends to focus on the technical challenges related to its
pretreatment phase, such as the insufficient separation of cellulose and lignin, the
formation of byproducts that inhibit downstream fermentation, the high use of
chemicals and/or energy, the cost of enzymes, and the high capital costs for pretreat-
ment facilities (Taylor et al. 2015). Given that the technical-readiness level of most
wood-based chemicals remains fairly low (Hurmekoski et al. 2018a), the market
outlook, even up to 2030, remains uncertain, despite the obvious potential.
Advanced Biofuels
In terms of sheer volume, the substitution potential is several magnitudes higher for
bioenergy than for biomaterials (Schipfer et al. 2017). According to Plastics Europe
(2016), 42% of all oil and gas in Europe is used for electricity and heating, while
45% is used for transportation, 8% for chemistry (plastics 4–6%) and 5% for
other uses.
The demand for biofuels has largely been created by national or regional climate
and energy policies, such as the Renewable Energy Directive of the EU, which
necessitated a 10% blend of biofuels in road traffic by 2020 (EU 2009). However,
the first-generation biofuels have faced criticism due to the uncertainties associated
with their ability to reduce emissions, their low conversion efficiency, and the low
energy return on energy invested in some of the processes (de Jong et al. 2012). This
has created interest in advanced biofuels based on second-generation feedstocks.
The investment requirements can be up to three times higher for lignocellulosic
biofuels than for cornstarch- or sugarcane-based ethanol (Nguyen et al. 2017), due
to there being more steps in the production process. Also, the C5 and C6 sugars
produced in lignocellulosic biorefineries for fermentation are much more expensive
than sugar from sugarbeet or sugarcane (Carus et al. 2016). The cost disadvantage
of sugars derived from lignocellulosic feedstocks would need to be balanced by the
utilisation of lignin, which seems to be feasible only in the very long term, in terms
of its full potential (Carus et al. 2016). For this reason, the production of biofuels
typically requires the complementary production of biochemicals (or selling the
residues for such use) to make the business profitable. Indeed, the value of the
chemical industry is comparable to that of the fuel industry, despite it requiring only
a fraction of the biomass (FitzPatrick et al. 2010).
Chemicals
In Finland, more than a third of the chemical industry firms use bio-based feed-
stocks, and the number is expected to rapidly increase (Ministry of Employment
and the Economy 2014). The chemical industry is therefore seen as playing a key
role in the diversification of the forest-based sector.
Like biorefineries, chemicals can be classified in many ways. In terms of mar-
kets, an important distinction is for bulk chemicals (or basic chemicals), character-
ised by a high volume, low price and highly diverse end uses, and fine chemicals,
characterised by a low volume, high price and few applications. The mixtures of the
chemicals in these categories constitute specialty chemicals (or performance chemi-
cals), including adhesives, agrichemicals, detergents, cosmetic additives, construc-
tion chemicals, elastomers, emulsifiers, flavourings, food additives, fragrances,
industrial gases, lubricants, pigments, polymers and surfactants. A probable role for
the forest-based industries would be to supply basic or fine chemicals to be sold to
the chemical industries for a plethora of end uses (Hurmekoski et al. 2018a).
In terms of volume, the chemical sector is dominated by a small number of key
bulk chemicals, such as ethylene. Producing bio-sourced, drop-in basic chemicals
with an identical compound structure to their fossil-based counterparts appears to
be a promising approach for the biochemical markets, due to a greater likelihood of
acceptance by established chemical producers (FitzPatrick et al. 2010). That is, a
functional replacement with a different molecular structure would require signifi-
cant property testing to allow displacement of the chemical currently being used
(Biddy et al. 2016). However, while drop-in, bio-based chemicals are seen to have
an easier access to the markets compared to other types of chemicals (de Jong et al.
2012), they are not expected to be competitive by 2030 due to their low technology
readiness, longer conversion pathways and comparably high running and invest-
ment costs (e.g. Kruus and Hakala 2017). As a consequence, Bazzanella and
Ausfelder (2017) recommend exploiting the more efficient synthesis of target prod-
ucts that maintain the functional units of the feedstock molecules, such as polylac-
tic acid.
Let us consider the case of ethylene to highlight the complexity of the interplay
of market drivers and barriers in the chemical market, and the resulting difficulty of
assessing the market potential. According to Dornburg et al. (2008), ethylene (used
mostly for polyethylene plastic) is the largest of the currently produced petrochemi-
cals by volume. While bio-based ethylene has a technical readiness level of 8–9 out
of 9, it is competing with natural gas and, particularly, shale oil and gas, which have
higher relative yields of ethylene compared to conventional oil and gas sources
(Biddy et al. 2016). Yet ethylene production could fit into the overall product port-
folio of wood-based biorefineries, if certain parts of the feedstock would otherwise
have no use. If there is a price premium for bio-sourced ethylene, even a minute
share of the global market could have a large impact on the profitability of a single
biorefinery.
Unlike for biofuels, the demand shifters of biochemicals are not only related to
policy. There has been a shift from a technology push led by major chemical com-
panies to a market pull created by leading consumer brands, such as P&G, IKEA,
LEGO and the Coca Cola Company, which all have set specific targets for replacing
fossil-based chemicals (polymers) with more sustainable alternatives (Aeschelmann
and Carus 2015; Biddy et al. 2016). Naturally, policies could also create incentives
or influence the relative costs of different feedstocks through, for example, CO2
pricing to level off the differences between the operating and investment costs. Due
to the myriad end uses of chemicals, the market drivers and consumer preferences
may also vary significantly from one use to another.
According to Hurmekoski et al. (2018a), wood-based chemicals may primarily
compete with first-generation biochemicals and chemicals produced from other
second-generation feedstocks rather than petrochemicals, which would lower the
expected production volume considerably. However, it is too early to state any such
prognoses with certainty, and there seem to be ripe opportunities already available,
based on the €550 million standalone wood-based chemical mill investment by
UPM Kymmene in Germany in 2020, which will be producing dedicated biochemi-
cals for the production of items such as textiles, bottles, medicines, cosmetics and
detergents. Beyond 2030, the competition may change again with the introduction
of, for example, CO2 as a feedstock for the development of platform chemicals
(Alper and Orhan 2017).
Besides cellulose and hemicellulose, wood also contains lignin and a number of
heterogeneous extractives, derived, for example, from birch bark. There are highly
varied opportunities for such niche markets, resulting in a large number of specula-
tive uses in the long term (Box 4.2). Due to the numerous opportunities and the
early stage of their life-cycle, we can only argue that they may eventually make a
big difference in terms of value added, albeit the volume potential remains fairly
low due to the restricted availability of byproducts, except for lignin.
Box 4.2 Opportunities Related to Byproducts and Niche Markets

The biofuels and biochemicals reviewed in this section are mostly based on
fermenting or catalysing C5 and C6 sugars from cellulose and hemicellulose.
Besides cellulose and hemicellulose, wood also contains lignin and a number
of heterogeneous extractives (Fig. Box 4.1).
Around 70 Mt. of lignin are produced annually in the world, with 95% of
the production being incinerated. Other uses include dispersants (e.g. in the
construction industry), emulsifiers (asphalt emulsions), foams (plastics/poly-
mers), aromatics (vanillin) and stiffness enhancers (corrugated board)
(Bruijnincx et al. 2016), with most utilised, without chemical modification, as
fillers or additives (Aro and Fatehi 2017). However, lignin is considered to be
a main aromatic renewable resource for the development of chemicals and
polymers in the long term (Laurichesse and Avérous 2014). The low rate of
lignin exploitation to produce chemicals is mostly due to its complex, largely
undefined structure and its versatility depending on the origin, as well as its
tedious separation and fragmentation processes (Laurichesse and Avérous
2014). That is, while the limitations on the use of hemicellulose relate to mar-
kets rather than technology (Stern et al. 2015), the opposite holds true for
lignin (Bruijnincx et al. 2016). Platform or fine chemicals based on the ther-
mochemical conversion of lignin show a low technological-readiness level
(Kruus and Hakala 2017). However, the possibilities are highly varied, result-
ing in a countless number of speculative uses in the long term.
Wood also contains several small and highly heterogeneous extractives,
such as terpenes, fatty and resin acids, sterols, phenolic compounds and
hydrocarbons, which hold considerable potential as renewable resource s and
feedstocks for future biorefineries (Routa et al. 2017). For example, tree bark
Fig. Box 4.1 Currently utilised and potential routes from wood extractives to valuable
biochemicals. Green arrows commercialised routes, red arrows non-commercialised
routes, CLAs conjugated linoleic acids. (After Routa et al. 2017)
(continued)
Box 4.2 (continued)

contains bioactive components, such as tannins––phenolic compounds that
could be used in several technochemical applications and products, such as
glues, wood preservatives, foams, functional coatings and adhesives. Tannins
have widespread applications in many other industrial sectors, including the
food, beverage, clothing and pharmaceutical industries (Shirmohammadli
et al. 2018). Bark also contains non-cellulosic sugars, which can be utilised
further, but also make direct tannin extraction difficult (Kemppainen
et al. 2014).
A very interesting group of compounds are the birch wood extractives,
which possess considerable potential utility. Natural birch bark extractives,
such as triterpenoids (e.g. betulin and related derivatives), suberinic fatty
acids and phenolic compounds, find potential use in pharmaceutical, techno-
chemical and food/feed applications. Birch bark triterpenoids have shown a
marked potential as precursors for HIV and cancer therapy, as well (Krasutsky
2006). For the recovery of wood extractives, thermochemical techniques,
such as pyrolysis, hot-water extraction and hydrothermal liquefaction, seem
to be the most promising technologies. Nevertheless, large-scale operations
for the recovery and further refinement of wood extractives are still scarce.
The utilisation of tall oil is mainly focused on the production of renewable
diesel. However, crude tall oil refining also produces side-products, such as
tall oil rosin and tall oil pitch, which find use in many different applications,
especially in the technochemical field (Routa et al. 2017).
Cellulose can also be broken down to the nanoscale, which alters the prop-
erties of the fibres, giving them superior strength, liquid-crystal behaviour,
transparency, low thermal expansion, the capacity to absorb water, and piezo-
electric and electrical behaviours (Cai et al. 2013). According to Cowie et al.
(2014), the largest uses for nanocellulose are projected to be in packaging (2
Mt), paper (1.5 Mt) and plastic film (0.7 Mt) applications. Globally, the use of
nanocellulose as a cement additive has a potential market size of over four
million t. Other applications include functional paper, coatings, packaging,
pharmaceuticals, cultivation media, biosensors, various membranes, cata-
lysts, polymer composites, textiles and electronics (Thomas et al. 2018). So
far, larger-scale applications are limited to increasing the strength and reduc-
ing the weight of conventional carton packaging, for example.
4.2.3.5 Plastics and Packaging Markets
Similar to the construction market, there is a long tradition of using wood in the
packaging market s. Generally, the packaging markets are driven by global popula-
tion and GDP growth, as well as increasing e-commerce and the demand for take-
away products. However, wood-based packaging solutions may have increasing
potential due to an increasing resistance against plastics, originating particularly
from marine and microplastic pollution (World Economic Forum 2016). For exam-
ple, in the EU, certain short-lived plastic products have been banned, and the use of
plastic bags is being disincentivised, creating market pull for alternative materials.
The packaging markets also represent one of the most important uses of bio-
based chemicals (Hämäläinen et al. 2011; Näyhä and Pesonen 2012). The global
production of plastics has increased 20-fold over the past 50 years, from 15 Mt. in
1964 to 311 Mt. in 2014 (World Economic Forum 2016). Over the next 20 years, the
volume is expected to double, and by 2050 to quadruple (1.124 Bt) (World Economic
Forum 2016). Of the total global plastic market in 2015 (322 Mt), 40% ended up in
packaging, while up to 70% of bioplastics are used for packaging (Plastics Europe
2016). Plastics, and paper and paperboard each account for around 35% of the total
value of the packaging markets (Neil-Boss and Brooks 2013). The bioplastics mar-
ket is expected to gain a 5% share of the entire plastic-packaging market within
20 years (Byun and Kim 2014), but the share of wood-based polymers from the
entire bio-based polymer market remains modest.
As noted by de Jong et al. (2012), a plastic with a technical function and complex
supply chain could take between two and four decades to achieve production scales
over 100,000 t. According to Aeschelmann and Carus (2015), novel, 100% bio-
based, indirect-substitute polymers are not expected to grow as fast as the drop-in
polymers until 2030. Moreover, the advantage of bioplastics in a circular economy
is not clear, as they are not necessarily biodegradable, and rapid biodegradability is
not necessarily beneficial for the environment either, if the material cannot be recy-
cled (Soroudi and Jakubowicz 2013).
This leads us to argue that plastics, as such, are not necessarily a key business
opportunity for the forest-based industries (Hurmekoski et al. 2018a). Combined
with the technical and economic issues raised for the biochemical market, and the
likely role of forest industries as a platform chemical provider, indirect-substitute
products for the plastics market could have more potential by 2030. These indirect
substitutes could be plastic-mimicking products that use existing industrial infra-
structure, such as WPCs (Carus et al. 2015), paper-resembling films for flexible
packaging (Kruus and Hakala 2017) and other plastic-resembling wood or fibre-mix
materials for rigid packaging (e.g. Nägele et al. 2002). The demand for such indirect
plastic substitutes could be promoted by policy, such as the EU directive that bans
certain single- use-plastic products. Naturally, the demand for traditional wood-
based packaging or ‘second-generation’ fibre-based packaging (free from fossil-
based polymer coatings and adhesives) could increase their market share, vis-à-vis
plastics, glass and aluminium, as long as they are compatible with the disposal and
recycling behaviours in a circular production– consumption system, satisfy hetero-
geneous consumer needs, and support sustainable lifestyles by extending material
life- cycles (Korhonen et al. 2020).
4.2.3.6 Impacts of New Forest-Based Products on the Forest-Based Sector
Despite the wide array of possibilities associated with new forest-based products,
the core forest industry products–– sawnwood and pulp and paper––are likely to
still retain a significant role in 2030. This is due to the continuous demand for them,
as well as the long process involved with introducing a new product to the markets
and gaining large market volumes, and the long investment cycles of the forest-
based industries. Another reason is that the research and development (R&D) and
investment in new products is funded, to a significant degree, by turnover from the
traditional businesses, albeit wood-based innovations, such as textiles, may arise
from outside the traditional forest sector.
As local conditions and cultures vary, so do the shapes of the forest-based bio-
economy business models, as exemplified by the biorefineries of Borregaard in
Sarpsborg, Norway and the Metsä Group in Äänekoski, Finland (Hetemäki and
Hurmekoski 2020). Borregaard focuses on low-volume global niche markets rather
than commodity products, and makes relatively large R&D investments to serve, for
example, the agriculture, construction, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, food and elec-
tronics markets. In contrast, the bioproduct mill in Äänekoski––the largest forest-
industry investment in the Nordic countries––is centred around large-volume-market
pulp production, but it creates an ecosystem for smaller firms to utilise some of the
sidestreams created in the material- and energy-efficient pulp production process.
What do the developments reviewed above imply for the forest-based sector?
Consider a simple case, in which the forest-based industries in the USA, Canada,
Sweden and Finland gained a 1–2% global market share in the construction, tex-
tiles, biofuels, platform chemicals and (plastic) packaging markets by 2030. This
could result in an increase in revenue to the forest industries ranging from €18 to 75
billion per annum, corresponding to 10–43% of the production value of the forest
industries in these four countries in 2016 (Hurmekoski et al. 2018a). Achieving the
higher end of the range would require moving further downstream in the value
chains; that is, to assume new roles rather than remain a producer of intermediate
goods, which would highlight the role of services.
What would this mean for forests? The impact of gaining a 1–2% market share
from primary wood use could be in the range of 15–133 million m3, corresponding
to 2–21% of the industrial roundwood use in these countries in 2016 (Hurmekoski
et al. 2018a). The majority of this demand would be for sawn wood for construction.
Table 4.3 shows the additional impacts from a 10- and 100-fold market volume. The
purpose of such hypothetical scenarios is not to predict the market developments,
but simply to assess the scale of the emerging market opportunities. For example,
the implications of different market diffusion scenarios can be compared to the net
annual increment of forests in the EU (721 million m3: Forest Europe 2015) or to the
global roundwood production (2028 million m3: FAOSTAT), to make the matter
more tangible.
At least two observations arise. Firstly, a minute market share of the global mar-
kets would completely transform the forest-based sector. Secondly, it is not realistic
to expect an expanding bioeconomy to fully cover the demand in any of these
Table 4.3 Approximate impacts of hypothetical market diffusion scenarios for roundwood and
byproduct demand in 2030
~1% market Plastics and
share Construction Textiles Biofuels Biochemicals packaging Total
Roundwood, 7–117 7–15 – – 2 15–133
Mm3
Byproducts, Mt 2 – 28 33–45 2 66–73
~10% market Construction Textiles Biofuels Biochemicals Plastics and Total
share packaging
Roundwood, 70–1168 65–147 – – 15 150–1331
Mm3
Byproducts, Mt 20 – 280 331–452 25 656–732
~100% market Construction Textiles Biofuels Biochemicals Plastics and Total
share packaging
Roundwood, 698–11,684 650– – – 153 1501–13,306
Mm3 1469
Byproducts, Mt 200 – 2800 3311–4520 246 6557–7320
Adapted from Hurmekoski et al. (2018a)
markets, even though the amount of virgin wood resources required to satisfy the
construction or textile markets, for example, could, in principle, remain surprisingly
small––around the annual increment of the EU forests.
It can be assumed that many of the new products will be based on the existing
byproduct flows of the sawmilling and pulping industry, due to the limited ability to
pay for the feedstock. Here, wood-based construction is an important driver for raw
material availability, both for the pulp and paper industries and for a number of
emerging industries, creating both synergies and trade-offs (Hurmekoski et al.
2018a). On one hand, the forest-based product industries would benefit from the
increased demand for byproducts (wood chips, bark, sawdust and forest residues),
while an increasing production of sawn wood would make generous amounts of
byproducts available for the market. On the other hand, there would be competition
for the byproducts between the traditional and emerging uses, such as wood-based
panels and chemicals or biofuels. Also, other forms of interdependencies between
the industries are feasible, such as integrated biofuel and biochemical production in
a pulp mill, which could help to lower the pretreatment and transportation costs, and
improve energy efficiency (e.g. Kohl et al. 2013; Karvonen et al. 2018).
The future of the forest-based bioeconomy is dependent on the demand from the
end markets, developments in substitute markets, biomass markets, as well as poli-
cies at varying levels (Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2020). Due to the variation
between and within markets and regions, the opportunities for the forest-based bio-
economy will vary, such that a single, successful strategy cannot be articulated. A
greater volume and broader scope of research on these topics would undoubtedly
help to enable the emerging opportunities to be grasped.
4.3 Outlook for the Demand for a Forest-Based Bioeconomy
The year 2030 is relatively close, in terms of the likelihood of major new structural
changes having impacts in the markets. Thus, a trend forecast (using data from 2010
to 2018) to 2030 can provide a helpful baseline against which different assumptions
of changes in policy and technology, for example, can be reflected (see Figs. 4.2 and
4.3). In contrast, beyond 2030, major structural changes are likely to occur and have
a profound impact on the market, and therefore it is not as helpful to use current
trends to provide outlooks that cover several decades (UNECE/FAO 2021).
As the trend projections indicate, the outlook for forest-based products in the
coming decade seems increasingly diverse. Information and communications tech-
nologies will have several impacts on the demand for forest-based products. These
will reduce the demand for communication (graphic) papers, but increase the
demand for packaging paper grades, due to the boost in e-commerce (Hetemäki
et al. 2013). The demand for consumer papers, such as tissue paper, is expected to
continue to grow due to globally increasing middle-income consumers and urban-
isation. There are likely to be regional differences in the demand patterns, such as
between the OECD and non-OECD countries (Hetemäki et al. 2013). Packaging
and tissue-paper consumption are expected to increase, particularly in Asia and
Latin America (Pöyry Inc. 2015). Compared to many other industries, the COVID-19
pandemic may have had a relatively small impact on the forest- based industries, but
it may alternatively have accelerated the decline in the communication-paper mar-
ket and the increase in packaging and hygiene paper demand.
Solid wood products have experienced internal competition. The global per-
capita sawnwood consumption has declined in a trend-like manner for decades,
despite continued growth in the global GDP and population. This is partly explained
by the rapidly growing demand for wood-based panels and EWPs that can serve the
same markets as sawn wood (Bühlmann and Schuler 2013). For example, the pro-
duction of CLT in Europe has been growing at an average annual rate of 15% since
2007, despite the economic downturn and stagnation (Pahkasalo et al. 2015). While
the overall market share of wood in construction may not necessarily increase sig-
nificantly by 2030, its growth in hotspots in certain regions and market segments
seems likely. The regional differences in demand patterns for solid wood products
resemble those for paper products. Notably, China’s share of the global wood-based
panel production has increased to close to 50% during the last two decades (Fig. 4.1).
The outlook for bioenergy is highly uncertain, and regional differences can be
significant (Hetemäki et al. 2020). Of the global roundwood production, roughly
half ends up as wood fuel (energy). The major users of wood fuel are Africa, Asia
and South America, while Europe’s share of the global consumption of wood fuel
was 9% (173 million m3) in 2018 (FAOSTAT). In the long-term, it seems likely that
wood-fuel consumption will decline due to a transformation to other energy forms,
such as solar, wind, natural gas, hydro and hydrogen, and increases in bioenergy
efficiency (Glenn and Florescu 2015; Hetemäki et al. 2020). However, the transfor-
mation will also depend on how extensive, and in what time frame, bioenergy
carbon capture and storage becomes a viable option. In the nearer future––in the
2020s––and especially in the EU, policies supporting the use of bioenergy may
continue to increase the wood-fuel consumption, as major changes in the energy
infrastructure tend to take a decade or more, although the likelihood of continued
support for the policy remains contested (Hurmekoski et al. 2019).
For emerging forest-based products, their competitiveness depends heavily on
the rate of innovation uptake in competing industries, which, in turn, depends on
factors such as climate and energy policies and their impacts on oil feedstock and
CO2 emissions prices. For example, synthetic biology, or the conversion of fossil
CO2 by industrial biotechnology routes, may have the prospect of providing new
products, such as bioethanol and butanol, or organic acids for polyesters, at less cost
and using more energy-efficient processes (BIO-TIC 2015; Kruus and Hakala
2017). Carbon dioxide captured from air can technically be directly converted into
methanol fuel or plastics (Kothandaraman et al. 2016). Some of these technologies
are expected to have already been commercialised by 2030 (BIO-TIC 2015).
It is unclear what the net impacts of forest-based product development on global
roundwood demand will be (Hetemäki et al. 2020). Some trends point to a growing
roundwood demand, including economic and population growth and the need to
replace fossil-based materials and energy with more sustainable raw materials
(Pepke et al. 2020). For example, Dasos Capital Oy (2019) projected that all the
main forest-based products would grow at rates of 2.1–5.5% per annum until 2030.
At the same time, the graphic-papers demand is declining and the wood-fuel (bio-
energy) demand could decline significantly in Africa and Asia (Hetemäki et al.
2020). Also, resource-efficiency and resource-recovery trends (e.g. cascading, recy-
cling, process technological improvements) may limit the demand for virgin raw
materials. Importantly, much of the production of new wood-based products would
be based on the byproducts of the mature industries (Hurmekoski et al. 2018a).
Determining the extent to which the demand for wood resources for new products
would be additional, rather than shifting from one use to another, would need to be
determined by an optimisation model that also included new wood-based products
(see Sect. 4.4). In addition to the challenge to compute net impacts from these
diverse trends, the regional differences can be significant. Also, in regions where
there is pressure for increasing forest biomass utilisation, there could be trade-offs
between the different ecosystem services that forests provide, which could curb
the demand.
In summary, through this decade (the 2020s), the trends we are observing today,
that are summarised above, will most likely still be the dominant ones. In the longer
term, forests will no doubt continue to provide products for the increasing needs of
humanity, but the race towards a more sustainable economy will also undoubtedly
shape the competition between the forest-based sector and other sectors. The net
impacts of the structural changes of the forest-based sector reviewed in the previous
sections remain very uncertain. In the next section, we will briefly review the meth-
odological challenges associated with long-term forest-sector outlook studies that
partly explain the lack of a more concrete picture of the coming decades.
Box 4.3 Where Will New Jobs Be Created?

In 2018, in the EU27 (excluding the UK), there were 2.1 million people work-
ing in the ‘traditional’ forest sector, comprising forestry, the solid wood
industries (excluding furniture) and the pulp and paper industries.
Unfortunately, the employment numbers in the sectors such as forest-based
bioenergy, biochemicals, biotextiles, furniture, printing, etc. cannot be derived
from existing statistical classifications, However, together, they could be even
more than the employment in the traditional forest sector. The furniture indus-
try alone employed 1.13 million in 2018, and probably a significant portion of
that was based on wood furniture. Thus, it would not be surprising if all the
forest-based industries with value-added activities in the EU27 had employed
around four million people. Moreover, there are 16 million private forest own-
ers in the EU, many of whom earn income from forests.
Given that fossil-based production needs to be phased out, this will inevi-
tably mean that many people will need to find new jobs in the EU. For exam-
ple, very basic, fossil-based raw-material manufacturing (coke and refined
petroleum products) alone employed a total of 186,200 people in 2018 in the
EU27. If we included the fossil-based-plastics industry and other fossil-based
industry sectors, this number would be much greater. For example, rubber and
plastics manufacturing alone employed 110,400 persons in 2018 in the EU27.
We are not aware of any projections for how employment in the fossil-
based manufacturing sector will develop in the EU27 when we move towards
carbon neutrality by 2050. In order to have at least some idea of the impor-
tance of the question, let us review a hypothetical example. Assume that CO2
emissions from the manufacture of coke, crude oil, gas and petroleum in the
EU is phased out from 2020 to 2050 by 2.5% points each year. This would
imply that, by 2050, there would be a cut of 75% of this sector’s CO2 emis-
sions. For the sake of simplicity, let us also assume that employment in the
sector is falling at the same rate; that is, only 25% of the employment level of
2020 is left in 2050. That would mean the loss of about 140,000 jobs in the
fossil sector of the EU27 during this period (Fig. Box 4.2). Naturally, the rate
could be different, and there would be other fossil-based sectors, such as plas-
tics and chemicals, also losing jobs.
The European Green Deal (EGD) acknowledges the need for a socially
justifiable move towards carbon neutrality by 2050, for example, via compen-
sation funds to countries and regions that are heavily dependent on fossil-
based industries. However, these funds will not automatically and necessarily
result in new jobs. Therefore, it will be crucial for the EGD to address more
explicitly how new jobs will be created, and in which sectors, when we move
towards a carbon-neutral society.
(continued)
Box 4.3 (continued)
Fig. Box 4.2 Illustrative example of CO2 emissions and number of people employed in
the EU27 in coke, crude oil, gas and petroleum manufacturing in 2020–2050. (Source of
employment data for 2018: EUROSTAT)
The creation of new jobs becomes an ever-bigger challenge if the EGD

imposes policies that work towards cutting back economic activities in the
renewable biological-resource-based sectors. Rather, the objective should be
to boost the biological sector’s economic activities in order to help phase out
the fossil sectors, and to create employment opportunities in more-sustainable
economic sectors. But this, of course, has to be done in an even more sustain-
able and resource-efficient way than in the past, while also considering the
biodiversity needs. To this end, the approach outlined by researchers, termed
‘climate-smart forestry’, could provide the way forward in the forest sector
(see Chap. 9).
As pointed out throughout this chapter, research on the future of the forest-based
sector remains scarce. Moreover, the focus of outlook studies has primarily been on
the sufficiency of wood resources, trends in the production of primary forest-based
products and international competitiveness, while some of the equally important
questions, such as value added, employment, changing demand patterns, and emerg-
ing forest-based products and services, have gained less attention, until recently
(Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2016; UNECE/FAO 2021).
The mainstream of the forest-sector outlook studies has been based on forest-
sector modelling, combined with stakeholder interaction and scenario development,
as a way of exploring and addressing the possible trade-offs that decision-makers
will face (Hurmekoski and Hetemäki 2013). The strength of the forest-sector mod-
els is in capturing the interdependencies between different parts of the system, mod-
elling the feedback and trickle-down impacts of changes in one part of the sector on
the rest of the sector by making market adjustments through pricing and interna-
tional trade (e.g. Toppinen and Kuuluvainen 2010).
The drawback of partial-equilibrium modelling and traditional econometrics is
that determining the impacts of an exogenous shock requires a stable operating
environment and the use of historical data, usually from a period of several decades.
However, we have observed several major structural changes in the global and
European forest-based sector in this century, which past data, and models based on
these, have difficulties in capturing. The structural changes are a result of two pri-
mary factors––the expected market diffusion of new wood-based products and the
changes in demand patterns for some of the established product groups. Regarding
new wood-based products, the apparent limitation is the lack of reliable data (or
long enough time-series) for the purpose of traditional econometric analysis. The
changing demand patterns may be a less apparent, albeit equally important, factor
to consider in modelling. However, apart from single cases, such as the substitution
of graphic papers by electronic media (Hetemäki and Obersteiner 2001; Latta et al.
2016), the demand shifters for most forest-based products remain elusive, so that
incorporating the omitted variables in demand equations may not necessarily be
accomplished in a completely satisfactory way.
Thus, the strength of the forest-sector models in capturing the interdependencies
between different parts of the forest sector can turn into a weakness in the presence
of structural changes in demand. It can lead to distorted feedback effects, which
may compromise the internal logic of the models. This means that, even if the pri-
mary research question was unrelated to structural changes, their impact may distort
the findings in any ‘what if’ analysis or long-term projection. For example, we can-
not assess whether an increase in forest-products production in one region, ceteris
paribus, will signify a decrease in wood-products production in some other region,
or a decrease in production of other materials. In the event of changes in the inter-
sectoral market share, we are also lacking the means to reliably assess changes in
the international market shares, even though it would otherwise be quite straightfor-
ward. This is a significant drawback when assessing the future uses of wood and
their implications on the economy and the environment.
Models are always simplifications of reality and can never be expected to accu-
rately predict market developments for several decades ahead. However, since
forest-products-markets research clearly falls into the realm of applied science, it is
essential to try to capture and explain market developments in order to maintain
their practical relevance (Hetemäki and Hurmekoski 2016). Although the evidence-
based models continue to be crucial elements of forest-sector outlook studies, they
are unlikely to meet the needs of decision-making alone in the increasingly complex
forest-based sector (Toppinen and Kuuluvainen 2010; Hurmekoski and Hetemäki
2013). For some forest products or regions, the traditional modelling framework
could work well, but to complement the picture with emerging and declining mar-
kets, alternative approaches may be necessary.
4.5 Key Messages
• The state of the world’s managed forests is determined by the societal demands
for wood resources and other ecosystem services. The interplay of supply and
demand thereby determines the employment and revenues created by the sector,
as well as the ability of forests to provide a range of ecosystem services, such as
wood-based products or carbon sinks.
• For the sake of the efficient planning of strategies, it can be useful to look ahead
and try to anticipate possible changes that may take place in the future. Indeed,
outlook studies have a long tradition in the forest-based sector.However, in the
face of increasing structural changes taking place in the sector and the operating
environment, the task of looking ahead is becoming evermore important, but also
more challenging.
• In the twenty-first century, several structural changes have become evident. The
demand for some of the traditional forest products is no longer developing on a
par with consumers’ available incomes. Instead, there are new factors influenc-
ing the demand for forest products, causing substitution between forest products
and alternative products. As these factors are partly unknown or unmeasurable,
future projections are subject to increasing uncertainty.
• A key trend in the forest industries is diversification, referring to new market
opportunities for wood-based industries in, for example, the construction, tex-
tiles, packaging, biochemical and biofuel markets. As the importance of some of
the traditional forest products––notably communication papers––are declining,
the sector will not necessarily be dominated by single sectors in the long term.
Moreover, the boundaries with other industries are becoming increasingly
indistinguishable.
• There is a severe lack of systematic outlook studies that would illuminate the
possible impacts of the expected structural changes of the forest-based sector
(Hetemäki et al. 2020). As changes in the forest sector are usually gradual and
slow, compared to the digital sector, for example, the current trends are likely set
in a reasonable direction up to around 2030. However, over time, the uncertainties
will grow bigger, owing to the large number of emerging market opportunities,
as well as developments in the operating environment and other sectors. These
uncertainties also imply significant uncertainties in the global demand for round-
wood, and by extension, also the extent of the trade-offs between different eco-
system services and land uses. The implications for the climate impacts of wood
use are reflected further in Chap. 7.
Acknowledgements Elias Hurmekoski wishes to acknowledge financial support from the

SubWood Project (No. 321627), funded by the Academy of Finland.
References
Aeschelmann F, Carus M (2015) Bio-based building blocks and polymers in the world – capaci-
ties, production and applications: status quo and trends towards 2020. Summary. Nova-Institut
für politische und ökologische Innovation Gmbh, Hürth
Alderman D (2013) Housing and construction markets. UNECE/FAO Forest products annual mar-
ket review 2012–2013. Geneva timber and Forest study paper 33. Forestry and Timber Section,
United Nations, Geneva, pp 115–122
Alkhagen M, Samuelsson Å, Aldaeus F, Gimåker M, Östmark E, Swerin A (2015) Roadmap 2015
to 2025. Textile materials from cellulose. Research Institutes of Sweden
Alper E, Orhan OY (2017) CO2 utilization: developments in conversion processes. Petroleum
3:109–126
Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical
model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35:604–633
Antikainen R, Dalhammar C, Hildén M, Judl J, Jääskeläinen T, Kautto P, Koskela S, Kuisma M,
Lazarevic D, Mäenpää I (2017) Renewal of forest based manufacturing towards a sustainable
circular bioeconomy. Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 13
Aro T, Fatehi P (2017) Tall oil production from black liquor: challenges and opportunities. Sep
Purif Technol 175:469–480
Arora SK, Foley RW, Youtie J, Shapira P, Wiek A (2014) Drivers of technology adoption—the case
of nanomaterials in building construction. Technol Forecast Soc Change 87:232–244
Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud 29:155–173
Bazzanella AM, Ausfelder F (2017) Low carbon energy and feedstock for the European chemi-
cal industry. Technology Study. DECHEMA Gesellschaft für Chemische Technik und
Biotechnologie e.V., Study commissioned by Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council
Bell W (2003) Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge. Transaction
Publishers, Piscataway
Biddy MJ, Scarlata C, Kinchin C (2016) Chemicals from biomass: a market assessment of bio-
products with near-term potential. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golde. https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65509.pdf
Bio-based Industries Consortium (2013) The Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda (SIRA).
https://biconsortium.eu/about/our-vision-strategy/sira. Accessed 13 Mar 2020
BIO-TIC (2015) A roadmap to a thriving industrial biotechnology sector in Europe. http://www.
industrialbiotech-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BIO-TIC-roadmap.pdf. Accessed 30
March 2020
Bruijnincx P, Weckhuysen B, Gruter G-J, Westenbroek A, Engelen-Smeets E (2016) Lignin valori-
zation. The importance of a full value chain approach. Utrecht University, Utrecht
Bühlmann U, Schuler A (2013) Markets and market forces for secondary wood products. In:
Hansen E, Panwar R, Vlovsky R (eds) The global Forest sector. Changes, practices, and
Prospects. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Byun Y, Kim YT (2014) Utilization of bioplastics for food packaging industry. In: Han JH (ed)
Innovations in food packaging, 2nd edn. Academic Press/Elsevier, Amsterdam
Cai Z, Rudie AW, Stark NM, Sabo RC, Ralph SA (2013) New products and product categories
in the global forest sector. In: Hansen E, Panwar R, Vlosky R (eds) The global forest sector.
Changes, practices. and Prospects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 129–150
Carus M, Eder A, Dammer L, Korte H, Scholz L, Essel R, Breitmayer E, Barth M (2015)
Wood –plastic composites (WPC) and natural fibre composites (NFC): European and global
markets 2012 and future trends in automotive and construction. Nova-Institut für politische und
ökologische Innovation GmbH, Hürth
Carus M, Raschka A, Iffland K, Dammer L, Essel R, Piotrowski S (2016) How to shape the next
level of the European bio-based economy. The Reasons for the Delay and the Prospects of
Recovery in Europe. Renewable matter. NOVA Institute
Cowie J, Bilek EM, Wegner TH, Shatkin JA (2014) Market projections of cellulose nanomaterial-
enabled products—part 2: volume estimates. TAPPI J 13:57–69
Dasos Capital (2019) Future prospects for forest products and timberland investment, 5th edn.
Dasos Capital Oy, Helsinki de Jong E, Higson A, Walsh P, Wellisch M (2012) Bio-based
chemicals value added products from biorefineries. Task 42 Biorefineries. International Energy
Agency Bioenergy
de Jong E, Higson A, Walsh P, Wellisch M (2012) Bio-based chemicals value added products from
biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy, Task 42 Biorefinery
de Vet J-M, Pauer A, Merkus E, Baker P, Gonzalez-Martinez AR, Kiss-Galfalvi T, Streicher G,
Rincon-Aznar A (2018) Competitiveness of the European cement and lime sectors. European
Commission, Brussels
Dornburg V, Hermann BG, Patel MK (2008) Scenario projections for future market potentials of
biobased bulk chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology 42:2261–2267
Edita Prima Ltd, Helsinki. Textile Exchange (2019) Preferred fiber & materials. Market Report
2019. Textile Exchange
European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe – strengthening the connec-
tion between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy. European
Commission, Brussels
European Union (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23
April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
FitzPatrick M, Champagne P, Cunningham MF, Whitney RA (2010) A biorefinery processing per-
spective: treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products.
Bioresource Technology 101:8915–8922
Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) The State of the World’s Forests 2018 – Forest path-
ways to sustainable development. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. FAO, Rome
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome (2016) Forestry for a low-carbon future: integrating
forests and wood products into climate change strategies. FAO, Rome
Forest Europe (2015) State of Europe’s forests 2015. Forest Europe, Bonn
Glenn JC, Florescu E (2015) 2015–2016 state of the future. The Millenium Project, Washington, DC
Graichen FHM, Grigsby WJ, Hill SJ, Raymond LG, Sanglard M, Smith DA, Thorlby GJ, Torr KM,
Warnes JM (2016) Yes, we can make money out of lignin and other bio-based resources. Ind
Crop Prod 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.036
Guerrero JE, Hansen E (2018) Cross-sector collaboration in the forest products industry: a review
of the literature. Can J For Res 48:1269–1278
Hämäläinen S, Näyhä A, Pesonen H-L (2011) Forest biorefineries – a business opportunity for the
Finnish forest cluster. J Clean Prod 19:1884–1891
Hammerle FM (2011) The cellulose gap (the future of cellulose fibers). Lenzinger Ber 89:12–21
Hetemäki L (1999) Information technology and paper demand scenarios. In: Palo M, Uusivuori J
(eds) World forests, society and environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–40
Hetemäki L (2005) ICT and communication paper markets. Inf Technol For Sect 18:76–104
Hetemäki L, Hurmekoski E (2016) Forest products markets under change: review and research
implications. Curr For Rep 2:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0042-z
Hetemäki L, Hurmekoski E (2020) Forest bioeconomy development: markets and industry struc-
tures. In: Nikolakis W, Innes JL (eds) The wicked problem of forest policy: multidisciplinary
approach to sustainability in forest landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hetemäki L, Obersteiner M (2001) US newsprint demand forecasts to 2020. International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Interim Report IR-01-070. International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg
Hetemäki L, Hänninen R, Moiseyev A (2013) Markets and market forces for pulp and paper prod-
ucts. In: Hansen E, Vlosky R, Panwar R (eds) Global Forest products: trends, management, and
sustainability. Taylor and Francis Publishers, Abingdon
Hetemäki L, Palahi M, Nasi R (2020) Seeing the wood in the forests. Connecting knowledge to
action no.1. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Hildebrandt J, Hagemann N, Thrän D (2017) The contribution of wood-based construction materi-
als for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustain Cities Soc 34:405–418
Hurmekoski E, Hetemäki L (2013) Studying the future of the forest sector: review and implica-
tions for long-term outlook studies. For Policy Econ 34:17–29
Hurmekoski E, Jonsson R, Korhonen J, Jänis J, Mäkinen M, Leskinen P, Hetemäki L (2018a)
Diversification of the forest- based sector: role of new products. Can J For Res 48:1417–1432.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116
Hurmekoski E, Pykäläinen J, Hetemäki L (2018b) Long-term targets for green building: explor-
ative Delphi back casting study on wood-frame multi-story construction in Finland. J Clean
Prod 172:3644–3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.031
Hurmekoski E, Lovrić M, Lovrić N, Hetemäki L, Winkel G (2019) Frontiers of the forest-based
bioeconomy–a European Delphi study. For Policy Econ 102:86–99
Jonsson R, Hurmekoski E, Hetemäki L, Prestemon J (2017) What is the current state of forest
product markets and how will they develop in the future? In: Winkel G (ed) Towards a sustain-
able European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. What science can
tell us. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 126–131
Kangas K, Baudin A (2003) Modelling and projections of forest products demand, supply and
trade in Europe. A study prepared for the European Forest Sector Outlook Study (EFSOS).
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome
Karvonen J, Kunttu J, Suominen T, Kangas J, Leskinen P, Judl J (2018) Integrating fast pyrolysis
reactor with combined heat and power plant improves environmental and energy efficiency in
bio-oil production. J Clean Prod 183:143–152
Kemppainen K, Siika-aho M, Pattathil S, Giovando S, Kruus K (2014) Spruce bark as an industrial
source of condensed tannins and non-cellulosic sugars. Ind Crop Prod 52:158–168
Klemperer WD (2003) Forest resource economics and finance. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kohl T, Laukkanen T, Järvinen M, Fogelholm C-J (2013) Energetic and environmental performance
of three biomass upgrading processes integrated with a CHP plant. Appl Energy 107:124–134
Korhonen J, Koskivaara A, Toppinen A (2020) Riding a Trojan horse? Future pathways of the
fiber -based packaging industry in the bioeconomy. For Policy Econ 110:101799
Kothandaraman J, Goeppert A, Czaun M, Olah GA, Prakash GKS (2016) Conversion of CO2 from
air into methanol using a polyamine and a homogeneous ruthenium catalyst. J Am Chem Soc
138:778–781
Krasutsky PA (2006) Birch bark research and development. Nat Prod Rep 23:919–942
Kruus K, Hakala T (2017) The making of bioeconomy transformation. VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland Ltd, Espoo
Lähtinen K, Harju C, Toppinen A (2019) Consumers’ perceptions on the properties of wood affect-
ing their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of timber. Wood Mater Sci
Eng 14:325–331
Latta GS, Plantinga AJ, Sloggy MR (2016) The effects of internet use on global demand for paper
products. J For 114(4):433–440
Laurichesse S, Avérous L (2014) Chemical modification of lignins: towards biobased polymers.
Prog Polym Sci 39:1266–1290
Mahapatra K, Gustavsson L (2008) Multi-storey timber buildings: breaking industry path depen-
dency. Build Res Inf 36:638–648
Malmgren L (2014) Industrialized construction – explorations of current practice and opportuni-
ties. Doctoral thesis, Lund University
Mantau U, Saal U, Prins K, Steierer F, Lindner M, Verkerk H, Eggers J, Leek N, Oldenburger J,
Asikainen A (2010) EuWood – real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests.
European Forest Institute, Sarjanr
Moiseyev A, Solberg B, Kallio AMI (2013) Wood biomass use for energy in Europe under dif-
ferent assumptions of coal, gas and CO2 emission prices and market conditions. J For Econ
19:432–449
Muilu-Mäkelä R, Haavisto M, Uusitalo J (2014) Puumateriaalien terveysvaikutukset sisäkäytössä –
Kirjallisuuskatsaus [Health effects of wooden interiors – a literature review]. Metla working
papers 320. Vantaa, Finland
Nägele H, Pfitzer J, Nägele E, Inone ER, Eisenreich N, Eckl W, Eyerer P (2002) ARBOFORM® –
a thermoplastic, processable material from lignin and natural fibers. Chemical Modification,
Properties, and Usage of Lignin Springer, pp. 101–119
Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, Dalai AK (2010) Production of first and second generation biofuels:
a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:578–597
Näyhä A, Pesonen H-L (2012) Diffusion of forest biorefineries in Scandinavia and North America.
Technol Forecast Soc Change 79:1111–1120
Näyhä A, Hetemäki L, Stern T (2014) New products outlook. In: Hetemäki L (ed) Future of the
European forest -based sector: structural changes towards bioeconomy. What science can tell
us 6. European Forest Institute, pp 15–32
Neil-Boss N, Brooks K (2013) Unwrapping the packaging industry. Seven Factors for Success.
Ernst & Young
Nguyen Q, Bowyer J, Howe J, Bratkovich S, Groot H, Pepke E, Fernholz K (2017) Global produc-
tion of second generation biofuels: trends and influences. Dovetail Partners Inc
Pahkasalo T, Gaston C, Schickhofer G (2015) Value-added wood products. In: UNECE/FAO (ed)
Forest products annual market review 2014–2015. Switzerland, Geneva, pp 105–114
Textile Exchange (2019) Preferred Fiber & Materials Market Report 2019
Pepke E, Bowyer J, Fernholz K, Groot H, McFarland A (2020) Future developments in the forest
sector. Dovetail Partners Inc. Plastics Europe (2016) Plastics – the Facts 2016. An analysis of
European plastics production, demand and waste data. Brussels, Belgium
Pöyry Inc. (2015) World fibre outlook up to 2030. Vantaa, Finland
Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Rougieux P, Damette O (2018) Reassessing forest products demand functions in Europe using a
panel cointegration approach. Appl Econ 50(30):3247–3270
Routa J, Brännström H, Anttila P, Mäkinen M, Jänis J, Asikainen A (2017) Wood extractives of
Finnish pine, spruce and birch–availability and optimal sources of compounds: a literature
review. Nat Resour Bioeconomy Stud 73:55
Routley M, Phaal R, Probert D (2013) Exploring industry dynamics and interactions. Technol
Forecast Soc Change 80:1147–1161
Schipfer F, Kranzl L, Leclère D, Sylvain L, Forsell N, Valin H (2017) Advanced biomaterials
scenarios for the EU28 up to 2050 and their respective biomass demand. Biomass Bioenergy
96:19–27
Shen L, Worrell E, Patel MK (2010) Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose
fibres. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:260–274
Shirmohammadli Y, Efhamisisi D, Pizzi A (2018) Tannins as a sustainable raw material for green
chemistry: a review. Ind Crop Prod 126:316–332
Sirajunnisa AR, Surendhiran D (2016) Algae–a quintessential and positive resource of bioethanol
production: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 66:248–267
Soroudi A, Jakubowicz I (2013) Recycling of bioplastics, their blends and biocomposites: a review.
Eur Polym J 49:2839–2858
Stern T, Ledl C, Braun M, Hesser F, Schwarzbauer P (2015) Biorefineries’ impacts on the Austrian
forest sector: a system dynamics approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 91:311–326
Taylor R, Nattrass L, Alberts G, Robson P, Chudziak C, Bauen A, Libelli IM, Lotti G, Prussi
M, Nistri R (2015) From the sugar platform to biofuels and biochemicals. Final Report for
the European Commission Directorate-General Energy N (ENER/C2/423–2012/SI2.673791)
ministry of Employment and the Economy (2014) Sustainable growth from bioeconomy. The
Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy
Thomas B, Raj MC, Joy J, Moores A, Drisko GL, Sanchez C (2018) Nanocellulose, a versatile green
platform: from biosources to materials and their applications. Chem Rev 118:11575–11625
Toppinen A, Kuuluvainen J (2010) Forest sector modelling in Europe––the state of the art
and future research directions. For Policy Econ 12(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2009.09.017
Toppinen A, Röhr A, Pätäri S, Lähtinen K, Toivonen R (2018) The future of wooden multistory
construction in the forest bioeconomy – a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden. J For
Econ 31:3–10
United Nations (2015a) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/70/1
United Nations (2015b) Paris agreement. United Nations
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organization (2011) The
European forest sector outlook study II 2010–2030. UNECE/FAO, Geneva
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organization (2021)
Forest sector outlook study III. UNECE/FAO, Geneva
Uronen T (2010) On the transformation processes of the global pulp and paper industry and their
implications for corporate strategies – a European perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Aalto
University
Varian H (2010) Intermediate microeconomics, 8th edn. WW Norton & Company, Inc, New York
World Economic Forum (2016) The new plastics economy - rethinking the future of plastics
Chapter 5
Forest Biomass Availability
Perttu Anttila and Hans Verkerk
Abstract The forest-based bioeconomy relies on using forests as a source of raw

material for producing materials and energy, as well as for a variety of other ecosys-
tem services. The uses of forests and wood are many and, to some extent, compet-
ing. Can a limited resource simultaneously and sustainably provide raw materials
for products, feedstock for energy production, and other ecosystem services? Over
one-third of the land area in the EU is covered by forests, but there are large differ-
ences between the member states regarding both forest area and growing stock of
wood. The harvesting of roundwood has been steadily increasing. In addition to
roundwood, other tree parts, as well as residues from forest industries and post-
consumer wood, are being used for both materials and energy production. There are
non-negligible uncertainties regarding the future availability of forest biomass in
the context of climate change, as well as difficulties to concern all the relevant con-
straints on biomass supply in relation to availability assessments and the difficult-
to-predict effects of policies. Despite the above, it can be concluded that there is still
potential to increase the utilisation of forest biomass in most of the EU regions, but
this might affect the provisioning of other important ecosystem services.
Keywords Forest resources · Harvesting potential · Roundwood · Forestry

residues · Utilisation rate
P. Anttila (*)
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland
H. Verkerk

92 P. Anttila and H. Verkerk
5.1 European Forests and the Utilisation of Biomass
Aside from other services, the EU’s forests represent a vast raw-material resource.
Forests account for 38% of the EU28 land area (Forest Europe 2020a). In 2019, this
amounted to 162 mill. ha in total, of which 138 mill. ha was available for wood sup-
ply. Forests are, however, unevenly distributed, and the share of forest area is gener-
ally higher in Northern Europe (up to 74% in Finland) than in Central or Southern
Europe, where it is between 30 and 40% in many countries (e.g. France, Germany,
Italy, Poland and Spain), or even less. Of the total EU28 forest area, 60% occurs in
only five member states––Sweden, Finland, Spain, France and Germany.
The growing stock of the EU28 forests available for wood supply amounts to
nearly 23 billion m3 (Forest Europe 2020a). The five biggest growing-stock coun-
tries account for 60% of this total, these being Germany (3.5 billion m3), France (2.9
billion m3), Sweden (2.7 billion m3), Poland (2.4 billion m3) and Finland (2.2 billion
m3). The high volumes in Central Europe can be explained by a high stocking den-
sity (m3 ha−1) in the forests in relation to the somewhat lower density in Northern
Europe. The above figures considered stemwood only, but branches and stumps are
also potential sources of woody biomass. Such woody components can increase the
aboveground biomass by 50% (Camia et al. 2018).
The woody biomass used to produce materials and energy comes from various
sources. In 2015, the share of woody biomass in the EU28 that was harvested
directly from domestic forests was nearly 57%, and the rest originated from imports,
byproduct and coproduct supply, wood pellet supply, post-consumer wood and
unaccounted sources (Cazzaniga et al. 2019b). Forest biomass comprises round-
wood and primary residues, i.e., logging residues (consisting of crown biomass and
stemwood loss), small-diameter trees and stumps.
There has been a clearly increasing trend in roundwood harvesting volumes in
the EU28 in this millennium, apart the financial crisis that caused a slump in
2008–2009 (see Fig. 1.4 in Chap. 1 – Box: Forest Bioeconomy in the EU).
Roundwood production increased from 486 mill. m3 (overbark) in 2000 to 578 mill.
m3 in 2019––an increase of almost one-fifth (Food and Agriculture Organization
[FAO] 2020). The five countries with the largest forest resources for wood produc-
tion also harvest most of the roundwood (Fig. 5.1). In Fig. 5.1, the impact of the
economic slump due to the financial crisis in 2009 is clearly visible.
Several severe storms have occurred in recent years in Europe (Forzieri et al.
2020; Senf and Seidl 2020) and their effects can be seen in terms of harvested vol-
umes. For example, storm Gudrun in January 2005 damaged 75 mill. m3 of round-
wood in Sweden, causing a supply peak of more than 30 mill. m3 (Gardiner et al.
2010). Likewise, the peak caused by storm Kyrill in January 2007, which damaged
37 mill. m3, is also discernible in Fig. 5.1. However, contrary to the two above-
mentioned storms, the effect of storm Klaus in February 2009 in France, which
damaged 43 mill. m3, is barely visible. Similarly, storms and other disturbances in
different countries have also had significant effects. For example, the storm Vaia in
Italy resulted in about 8 mill. m3 of damaged wood–– approximately the same
5 Forest Biomass Availability 93
Fig. 5.1 Harvesting volumes (overbark) of roundwood in five EU member states in 2000–2018
(FAO 2020). Underbark figures converted to overbark using the coefficient 1/0.88 (FAO,
International Tropical Timber Organization and United Nations 2020)
amount as harvested in an entire year in Italy. Also, the recent dry summers in
Central Europe, followed by severe bark-beetle outbreaks, have produced large
amounts of damaged wood. Disturbances can have a strong impact on the local for-
est sector, first by creating a pulse of available timber from salvage harvesting, but
later resulting in a shortage of local timber supply.
In addition to roundwood, primary residues are also being utilised, but mainly in
energy production. Unfortunately, there are no EU-level statistics on the consump-
tion of primary residues, and even national statistics may be weak. Germany,
Sweden and Finland are probably the top three countries in the EU. According to
Brosowski et al. (2016), the annual consumption of logging residues for energy use
in Germany in 2012 was 4.0–10.5 Tg. Assuming a basic density of 400 kg m−3 for
conifers and 500 kg m −3 for broadleaves, the consumption would have been roughly
9–23 mill. m3. In Sweden, the consumption of forest fuels between 2013 and 2018
was 15.2–20.2 TWh (Energimyndigheten 2020). This equates to approximately
8–10 mill. m3, assuming 1 solid m3 equals 2 MWh. In Finland, the consumption for
the same period was 7–8 mill. m3 (Natural Resources Institute 2020).
The other sources of woody biomass can be divided into secondary and tertiary
forestry residues and trade. Trees grown outside of forests and short-rotation cop-
pice grown on forest or agricultural land are minor sources that are not discussed
here. The secondary forestry residues (aka industrial residues) are the side products
of wood processing or come from the production of wood products, and include
sawdust and cutter chips, bark, slabs, lumpwood residues and black liquor (Lindner
et al. 2017).
The wood resource balance introduced by Cazzaniga et al. (2019b) does not
employ the same classification as above, but divides the secondary residues into
sawmill residues, other industrial residues, wood pellets and black liquor. In 2015,
over 87 mill. m3 of sawmill residues, 11 mill. m3 of other industrial residues, 38
mill. m3 of wood pellets and 67 mill. m3 of black liquor were used in the EU28
(Cazzaniga et al. 2019b). The cascading flows of these side-streams are illustrated
in Fig. 5.2.
Fig. 5.2 Woody biomass flows in the EU28 in 2015 (in mill. m 3 solid wood equivalent overbark).
(Source: Cazzaniga et al. 2019a)
Tertiary forestry residues (i.e. post-consumer wood) include wooden material

that is available at the end of its use as a wooden product. In 2015, the consumption
of tertiary residues in the EU28 was estimated at 37 mill. m3 (Cazzaniga et al. 2019b).
Furthermore, wood is traded between the EU and other countries. Between 2010
and 2018, the EU was a net importer of roundwood, bringing in 11–18 mill. m3
(overbark) more than it exported (FAO 2020). In 2019, however, the direction of the
stream reversed, with the EU exporting 2 mill. m3 more than it imported. To a large
extent, this amonnt can be attributed to the Central European bark-beetle infesta-
tion, which has forced the Czech Republic, in particular, to greatly increase their
timber exports.
One single country stands out among the exporters to the EU-Russia alone has
exported 7–10 mill. m3 of industrial ronndwood and wood chips between 2010 and
2017 (FAO 2020). Russia’s forest area is five times larger than the EU’s, and its
exports to conntries like Finland and Sweden are substantial. However, basing the
feedstock sourcing of bio-based businesses solely on Russian wood imports would
be challenging for several political and infrastructural reasons (Leskinen et al. 2020;
Box: Huge Russian forest resources -a reality or an illusion?).
5.2 Availability of Forest Biomass
The growing stock and increment rates of Europe’s forests have been increasing
almost continuously over the last several decades (Gold et al. 2006; Forest Europe
2020a). In fact, Albania is the only country in the whole of Europe that has reported
a decrease in growing stock between 1990 and 2015. In recent years, the increase
has been especially rapid in Central-East Europe (including Ukraine, Belarus and
Georgia outside of the EU).
The major reasons for the increasing growing stock include: the fellings and
natural losses that together have been less than the gross increment; the increasing
increment rates and changes in forest management that have caused forests to
become denser (e.g. Vilén et al. 2016); nitrogen deposition (e.g. de Vries et al. 2009;
Etzold et al. 2020); as well as the combined effect of nitrogen deposition, increased
atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change (Pretzsch et al. 2014; Flechard
et al. 2020).
The relation of annual fellings to the net annual increment (NAI) is a key sustain-
ability indicator of wood production. Generally, if the fellings fall below the NAI,
the growing stock is increasing. Correspondingly, if the fellings are more than the
NAI, the growing stock is decreasing. On average, 75% of the NAI was utilised by
the EU28 in 2015 (Forest Europe 2020a). However, the utilisation rates varied con-
siderably, from 99% in Belgium to 44% in Romania (and probably even lower in
countries lacking data).
The NAI is only a rough estimate of the maximum potential availability of wood
from forests, as it does not consider the stocking level of the forests, imbalances in
forest age structures, the potential availability of biomass from primary residues, or
ecological and socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, numerous technical, environ-

mental, economic and social constraints, which limit the availability of forests to
harvesting, need to be considered. Such factors can include soil productivity, soil
and water protection, biodiversity protection, technical recovery rates, the soil bear-
ing capacity, forest-owner behaviour, the profitability of wood production (harvest-
ing), and regional land-use plans (Verkerk et al. 2011, 2019; Barreiro et al. 2017; di
Fulvio et al. 2016; Kärkkäinen et al. 2020). When taking age-structure and stocking
level into account, and correcting for the constraints, the woody biomass potential
from EU forests has been estimated to range between 663 and 795 mill. m3 a−1, of
which some 80–90% is stemwood, the rest being mainly logging residues (Verkerk
et al. 2011, 2019; di Fulvio et al. 2016; Jonsson et al. 2018). These biomass poten-
tials are fairly stable over time.
The highest potentials per unit of land area can be found in parts of Northern
Europe (southern Finland and Sweden, Estonia and Latvia), Central Europe
(Austria, the Czech Republic and southern Germany), southwest France and
Portugal (Fig. 5.3).
Comparing the potential in the EU with the average roundwood production in
2010–2019, which was 539 mill. m3 (FAO 2020), reveals that over 80% of the stem-
wood potential is already in use. In fact, the share of utilised potential could be even
higher. The number for roundwood production has been found to underestimate
fellings due to, for example, unregistered fuelwood fellings in private forests
(Jochem et al. 2015). In some of the areas, wood use is already at a high level, indi-
cating little potential for increased use (Verkerk et al. 2019). Such areas include
southern Sweden and southwestern France. However, in some regions, the potential
could allow a considerable increase in utilisation.
Fig. 5.3 Estimated spatial distribution of forest biomass availability in 2020 (t⋅ha−1a−1) (left) and
unused potential per unit of land (t⋅ha−1a−1) (right). (Source: Verkerk et al. 2019)
The utilisation rate of primary forestry residues is substantially lower than for
stemwood. Yet in places where the utilisation rate is high, the competition from resi-
dues can increase supply costs. For example, in southern Finland, the consumption
of residues is expected to top the harvesting potential (Anttila et al. 2018).
Dees et al. (2017) estimated the potentials for secondary forestry residues in the
EU28 to be 190 and 194 mill. m3 for 2020 and 2030, respectively. The total potential
was further broken down into residues from the sawmill industry, pulp and paper
industry, and other wood-processing industries, with shares of 43, 37 and 20% in
2012, respectively. Naturally, these potentials depend directly on the production of
the industries.
5.3 Outlook for Forest Biomass Availability
Increasing harvesting to the limit of the potentially available volumes implies an

increasing need for labour and machinery. While these have so far not been consid-
ered as constraints in the availability assessments, mobilising more wood is likely
to increase the need for skilled labour. To some extent, this lack could be alleviated
by mechanisation and technological development. Technological development
could also increase the potentials, if formerly technically unavailable or too-costly
resources became available. For example, developing models to estimate the right
time to harvest a site on sensitive soil could remove a technical constraint (Salmivaara
et al. 2020).
Mobilising such potentially available volumes would mean a more intensive use
of the EU’s forest resources compared to the current situation. At the same time, the
EU is trying to maintain and strengthen its forest carbon sinks. The EU’s Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry Regulation (EU 2018) requires that the carbon sinks
of a member state be compared to a reference level, assuming a continuation of
historical (2000–2009) forest management practices. Should the future forest car-
bon sink be lower than the reference level, a member state would generate carbon
debits. It will be important to assess how increasing wood use will affect the carbon
balances of forests, wood products and through substitution effects.
Finally, even if ecological constraints are generally considered in biomass avail-
ability studies, higher harvesting levels could still affect carbon storage, biodiversity
and other forest functions other than wood production. In order to protect biodiver-
sity, the EU Biodiversity Strategy proposes to increase the area of protected forest
(European Commission 2020). The strategy also aims to increase the quantity, qual-
ity and resilience of EU forests. It proposes to achieve this by planting 3 billion
additional trees in the EU by 2030 and by establishing protected areas for at least
30% of the land in Europe, with stricter protection of European forests. The effect
of this strategy on forest biomass availability remains to be seen.
There is a substantial body of literature relating to the harvesting potential of forest

biomass in Europe. Despite the improved understanding this provides, important
challenges remain relating to the availability of data, ownership structures and
behaviour, and climate change (Barreiro et al. 2017; Nabuurs et al. 2019), all of
which require further research.
Existing studies on biomass availability typically rely on national forest inven-
tory data, with these data forming a solid basis for availability estimations (Vidal
et al. 2016). In recent years, countries have shifted towards statistical inventories,
which has improved the reliability and accuracy of the inventory results. However,
forest inventories mostly rely on national definitions, which reduce their compara-
bility, although progress is being made in overcoming this (Alberdi et al. 2016,
2020; Gschwantner et al. 2019). A key challenge relates to the availability of such
inventory data, as they are not always readily available (Nabuurs et al. 2019).
Improved availability would support ‘top-down’ assessments of biomass availabil-
ity, which, together with ‘bottom-up’ assessments, provide important insights into
biomass availability (Barreiro et al. 2017) and European forest resources more gen-
erally. An improved availability of data would also facilitate the increased use of
remote-sensing-based data to provide up-to-date and large-scale information on
Europe’s forest resources (e.g. Moreno et al. 2017), and thus also biomass avail-
ability assessments.
It is evident that climate change will affect forests and forest biomass availabil-
ity. Some European regions may benefit from the increased growth, while others
will face reduced productivity or suffer from extreme events and natural distur-
bances (Lindner et al. 2014; Reyer et al. 2017; see also Chap. 3) and, thereby, the
availability of wood. The frequency and intensity of forest disturbances are also
likely to increase in the future (Seidl et al. 2014, 2017). Forest disturbances can
cause strong peaks in biomass availability and will increase logistics costs, with the
capacity of nearby industries potentially not being able to digest sudden supply
peaks. For the industry, a constant supply of uniform quality is desirable, whilst for
forest owners, forest damage means lowered timber quality and prices. Future cli-
mate change impacts (including disturbances) need to be included in long-term for-
est planning (Senf and Seidl 2020), as well as in studies assessing biomass
availability.
To anticipate the impacts of climate change, strategies are being explored to
improve the resilience of forests in the context of climate change. A key strategy is
to increase species diversity––especially by increasing the share of broadleaved
species––in temperate and boreal forest stands to improve forest resilience (Jactel
et al. 2017; Astrup et al. 2018). Increasing species diversity will eventually affect
the type of biomass assortments that will be available to the industry from forests.
Further research is needed on how changes in biomass availability and quality may
affect forest industries.
Forest owners typically have multiple objectives when managing their forests,
and their attitude to mobilising more wood is unclear. While harvest probability
generally increases with higher productivity of the region and species, there are
important differences in harvesting decisions relating to local conditions, such as
site accessibility, the state of the forest resource (age), specific subsidies, and the
importance of other forest services (Schelhaas et al. 2018). Forest owner behaviour,
and heterogeneity therein, should be considered in future studies on biomass avail-
ability (Blennow et al. 2014; Rinaldi et al. 2015; Stjepan et al. 2015; Sotirov
et al. 2019).
5.5 Key Messages
• Existing studies indicate that a higher harvest level from EU forests could be
sustained, but this will be associated with lower carbon storage in forest ecosys-
tems, as well as impacts on other functions that forests have, including
biodiversity.
• There are large differences between the European regions regarding harvesting
potential and actual utilisation rate.
• The impacts of climate change on productivity are expected to vary across
Europe. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of
forest disturbances, which can cause strong peaks in biomass availability and
disrupt timber markets.
Box 5.1 Some Trends in the Global and the EU Forests

Antti Asikainen
Forests cover 4,06 billion hectares (31%) of the world’s total land area (FAO
2020b). Since 1990 the world has lost 178 million ha of forest, but the rate of
net forest loss has been decreasing in recent decades. In Europe, Oceania and
Asia, the forest area has been increasing whereas in Africa and South America
it has been decreasing (FAO 2020b). Global drivers effecting the entire land-
use sector are behind the changes of forest area. Increasing global population
and changes in the diet have created growing demand for food production and
land for farming and crazing. Commercial agriculture is the most important
driver of deforestation followed by local agriculture, urban expansion, infra-
structure and mining (Hosonuma et al. 2012). Forest degradation, however, is
driven by timber harvesting opening the forest areas for low intensity farming
and grazing and subsequent human induced fires (Hosonuma et al. 2012).
(continued)
Box 5.1 (continued)

In the EU, area of forest land has steadily increased since 1990’s (Eurostat
2020). Hosonuma et al. classify developing countries in four forest transition
(FT) phases. Pre transition countries have high forest cover and low deforesta-
tion rate, deforestation is at its highest in early and late transition phases,
whereas in post transition phase forest cover starts to increase due to refores-
tation. Although this classification was designed for developing countries, it
fits well to industrialized countries, too. EU countries in the last 50–100 years
can be classified to post transition phase, where large reforestation pro-
grammes resulted to increasing forest cover.
The conversion of forest into other uses, mainly to farmland, pastures and
cities, roads and other human infrastructures has been the major factor behind
the negative climate impacts in land use sector. Thus, a central element for
climate smart forestry is that forests stays as forests. Landowners and govern-
ments seek economic returns for their assets including land. When forest-
based livelihoods offer less income, other land uses e.g. agriculture, mining
and urban expansion take land. There are also reverse processes going on. For
instance, in Finland in 1969 to 2002s due to overproduction of agricultural
goods low value farm slots have been reforested. In total 240,000 hectares
were replanted with the governmental support. More recently (2007–2013),
the EU’s rural development policy induced an increase of 1 to 2% of the forest
area in some Member States/Regions such as ES – Asturias, ES - Castilla y
León, ES – Galicia, HU, LT, UK – England, UK - Northern Ireland, and of 3%
in UK – Scotland totaling c.a. 290,000 ha and even more is expected to be
afforested by 2020 (Anon. 2017). Uruguay is an illustrative example of large-
scale, market driven reforestation for the needs of rapidly growing pulp indus-
try. Its forest area has increased 1990–2016 from 8000 km2 to almost
19,000 km2 (Anon. 2020).
Forest area as a proportion of total land area is a global indicator of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is also included in the set of the
EU SDG indicators used to monitor progress towards the SDGs in the EU
context. It is important to recognize the effects of global trade into forest area.
The EU has paid attention into its impacts on global land use induced by e.g.
importing of soybean, wheat and other cereals and agricultural products
(COM 2019).
Box 5.2 Huge Russian Forest Resources – A Reality or an Illusion?

Antti Mutanen and Sari Karvinen
Based on a quick glance at the forest statistics, the forest resources of the
Russian Federation (Russia) can be considered simply huge. According to the
Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) most recent Global Forest
Resource Assessment, Russia’s forested area of 815 million ha is the largest
of all the countries in the world, whilst the growing stock of 81.1 billion m3 is
the second largest after Brazil (FAO 2020c). Forests available for wood sup-
ply (FAWS, as defined by the FAO) account for over 80% of the total forest
area and growing stock.
The easily created image of immense taiga providing virtually endless forest
resources is, however, somewhat deceiving. A more detailed investigation of the
statistics has revealed that the growth rate of Russian forests is low. The esti-
mated net annual increment is about 1.0 billion m3 in the total forest area and
850 million m3 in the FAWS area, which translates into an average net incre-
ment rate of merely 1.3 m3ha−1a−1 (Forest Europe 2020b; Roslesinforg 2021).
For comparison, the average net increment rate (FAWS) is about 4.9 m3ha−1a−1
in Finland and 4.8 m3ha−1a−1 in Sweden (Forest Europe 2020b). The low growth
rate of Russian forests is attributable to harsh climatic conditions (more than
half of the forests are situated on permafrost soils), unfavourable age structures
(about half of the coniferous forests are classed as mature and over-mature), as
well as the prevailing forest management practices (extensive forestry based on
large-scale clear-fellings and natural regeneration combined with a low level of
tending seedling stands and intermediate fellings).
In addition to the growth rate, the utilisation rate of forests is also low in
Russia. In the peak year of 2018, wood harvesting reached 240 million m3,
and the ratio of fellings to growth (FAWS) was 28% (Forest Europe.
2020b; FAOSTAT 2021). For comparison, the corresponding ratio was
71% in Finland and 79% in Sweden. The low ratio of fellings to growth is
obviously far from being a desirable state of affairs in Russia. The administra-
tively set annual allowable cut (AAC, raschetnaya lesoseka) for the whole
country is currently 730 million m3, or about 85% of the net annual increment
(FAWS). The determination of the AAC is based on the characteristics of the
forest, such as age and tree species composition. The AAC represents the level
of wood harvesting that is sustainable, in terms of timber production and pre-
serving the biodiversity and protective functions of the forests, which, accord-
ing to the Russian forest-use classification system, belong to the exploitable
and protective classes (Order of the Federal…). Moreover, the AAC can be
considered the target level of wood harvesting in the state-owned forests,
used, for example, as the basis for lease payments in leased forest areas
(Forest Code…).
(continued)
Box 5.2 (continued)
The current level of the AAC has been criticised by Russian experts as
being an unrealistic overestimate of the wood production potential (Shvarts
2018; Strategiya razvitiya lesnogo…). The foremost reason for this is the
inadequate infrastructure, especially the lack of a comprehensive forest road
network and missing railway connections, which means that vast expanses of
Russia’s forests are currently simply unreachable. In addition, the AAC does
not take into account the natural conditions, such as slopes, forest quality or
use restrictions, adequately. It has been estimated that, without a considerable
investment in infrastructure, the realistic AAC for the whole of Russia is cur-
rently about 340 million m3 (Strategiya razvitiya lesnogo…).
In Fig. Box 5.1, the area covered by forests is contrasted with the forest
area considered accessible for transport. The accessible forests are concen-
trated on the European part of Russia, where the infrastructure is relatively
well developed and where the majority of the production capacity of the
Russian forest industry is located. However, the most easily accessible for-
ests, within a reasonable transportation distance to forest industry complexes,
were felled decades ago, which, combined with poor forest management prac-
tices, has led to a deterioration in forest quality; that is, coniferous forests
have been replaced by deciduous ones. Moreover, in some regions, a marked
share of the coniferous forests is accessible only during winter due to the low
bearing capacity of the forest soils, which, under warming climate conditions,
makes wood procurement vulnerable (Goltsev and Lopatin 2013). Thus, in
many regions in the European part of Russia, the forest industry is suffering
from an inadequate supply of coniferous timber assortments, especially saw-
logs, and simultaneously, there is practically no demand for deciduous pulp-
wood (State Council…2013). This situation has led to the overexploitation of
the remaining coniferous forests, while natural losses have grown rapidly in
the deciduous forests.
Various stakeholders in the Russian forest sector, including wood proces-
sors, logging companies, the Federal Forestry Agency (Rosleskhoz), regional
forest management bodies, and environmental non-governmental organisa-
tions, consider intensive sustainable forest management (ISFM) to be a viable
means for tackling the problems relating to the low productivity and deterio-
rating quality of the forests (Gosudarstvennaya programma Rossiyskoy…;
Shmatkov 2013a, b; Intensivnoye lesnoye khozyaystvo…2015). The forest
management practices under the ISFM are basically the same as those used in
the Nordic countries––mainly artificial regeneration, active tending of seed-
ling stands, first thinnings and other intermediate fellings, followed by the
final felling. By applying ISFM, more wood could be produced per hectare
and per year than currently, which would help to secure the wood supply for
the forest industry, while simultaneously easing the pressure on opening intact
forest areas to logging.
(continued)
Box 5.2 (continued)
Fig. Box 5.1 Forests and potentially productive forests accessible for transport. The area
of forested land (680 million ha) is based on Landsat data and includes areas with forest
cover (canopy cover) greater than 20% and potential regeneration areas, such as logging
sites and burnt areas. The FAO’s definition of a forest sets the canopy cover threshold at
10%, hence the difference in forest area estimates (680 vs. 815 million ha). Potentially
productive forests accessible for transport are forest areas (excluding nature-protection
areas and intact forest landscapes) in which the long-term potential average increment is
more than 1 m3ha−1 (based on the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS) Net Primary Production product) and the forest transportation distance to an
existing road network is less than 1 km (Lopatin 2017)
(continued)
Box 5.2 (continued)
Fig. Box 5.2 Realised wood harvesting, the 2019 AAC, harvesting potentials under the
ISFM in exploitable forests and accessible forests in the whole of Russia and in the
European part of Russia. Accessible forests are the same as in Fig. 5.1. (Sources: Saint-
Petersburg Forestry…2015; Lopatin 2017; Finnish Forest Statistics 2020; Rosleskhoz
2020; Roslesinforg 2021; Yedinaya mezhvedomstvennaya 2021)
Russian experts have estimated that the ISFM could raise the harvesting
volumes to 3–4 m3ha−1 in the Northern Taiga Zone and to 5–6 m3ha−1 in the
Central and Southern Taiga Zones (Saint-Petersburg Forestry…2015). For
comparison, the harvesting intensity was 4.0 m3ha−1 (FAWS) in Finland in
2019 (Finnish Forest Statistics 2020). Figure Box 5.2. demonstrates the hypo-
thetical harvesting volumes for different harvesting intensities and for differ-
ent forest areas under the ISFM. If the ISFM was applied in all the forests
classed as exploitable, according to the Russian forest-use classification sys-
tem, and assuming that 4 m3ha−1 could be harvested, the total harvested vol-
ume would be 2.4 billion m3 across the whole of Russia; that is, almost tenfold
the current harvesting volumes or more than threefold the AAC. If the ISFM
was applied to the forest area considered accessible with the existing infra-
structure, the harvesting level would be 430 million m3, or roughly 60% of the
AAC and 1.9 times higher than the current harvesting volumes. On the
European part of Russia, applying the ISFM to the accessible forests would
hypothetically lead to a harvesting volume of twice the current fellings and
equal to the AAC. Thus, changing the forestry doctrine from extensive to
intensive could greatly increase forest productivity in Russia, as well as the
sustainable harvesting volumes. In several pilot areas, such as the Republics
(continued)
Box 5.2 (continued)
of Komi and Karelia, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Irkutsk, Kirov and the Leningrad
region, forestry norms already allow ISFM practices. However, there are no
statistics on how large a scale the leaseholders have adopted, or are planning
to adopt, the ISFM methods.
Many factors need to be considered when interpreting the harvesting
potentials presented in Fig. 5.2. Although a forest area may be classed as
accessible, there may not be any demand for the wood due to the tree species
being wrong or the transportation distance to a processing plant being too
long. In other words, besides the physical accessibility, economic accessibil-
ity is also needed. Moreover, a shift to the forest management practices of the
ISFM requires investments in forest regeneration, the tending of seedling
stands and a forest road network, a skilled workforce, and time. Taking the
example of the road network, a ‘conditionally adequate’ road density for for-
estry is, on average, 5 m ha−1, according to a Russian assessment (State
Council…2013). The current forest road density is about 3 m ha−1, thus the
construction of 1 million km of new roads would be required to reach an
adequate density in Russia’s exploitable forests. The costs would be EUR 13
billion, using the Finnish pricing level (Finnish Forest Statistics 2020). In
practice, the costs would be more substantial, as road construction costs are
higher in Russia (Petrunin 2013; Havimo et al. 2017). To achieve the forest
road density in Finland (10 m ha−1; Uotila and Viitala 2000), more than 4 mil-
lion km of new roads and EUR 57 billion would be required. For comparison,
in 2019, forestry financing totalled EUR 1.1 billion, of which EUR 0.3 billion
was invested by the forest leaseholders (Accounts Chamber…2020).
How to create incentives for forest leaseholders to invest in management
activities with payback times that will, at best, be decades in the future, when
there are also no guarantees that the lease period will be continued? Where to
find enough workers to execute labour-intensive operations, such as tending
seedling stands and thinnings, which are not that common in Russia? At pres-
ent, using Finland as an example, the number of forestry workers in relation
to the exploitable forest area is four times higher than in Russia, and even
though there would be a willingness and the assets available to invest in forest
management as well as the necessary workforce, materialisation of the full
harvesting potential provided by the ISFM would take decades.
Russian forests are vast by area and volume, and for decades, the realised
harvesting volumes have been far less than the AAC, the growth or the myriad
different kinds of harvesting potential estimates. It would be tempting to inter-
pret that there is a substantial – even astronomical – potential to increase the
material use of forests in Russia. However, it is unrealistic to assume that the
harvesting levels could be raised considerably in the short or medium terms.
(continued)
Box 5.2 (continued)
This fact has also been acknowledged in the Russian forest sector develop-
ment strategy, whose most positive scenario for the harvesting level of 2030 is
286 million m3. In the long term, it would be quite possible to reinforce both
the growth and harvesting volumes greatly. However, in order to realise this
development path, several challenges have to be overcome. Infrastructure has
to be developed, forest management rethought, the use of wood diversified,
the operating environment stabilised, etc. Naturally, money is needed, but also
politically sensitive issues, such as the private ownership of forests and the
role of foreign investors, have to be discussed at a profound level.
The vast forest resources have always tempted non-Russian wood proces-
sors to source feedstock from Russia. However, the task has never been an
easy one. During the last few decades, Russia has aimed at restricting round-
wood exports, and the means to do this have included protective export duties,
quotas and different regulations that complicate export procedures (Karvinen
et al. 2019). In fact, after a years-long period of relatively stable trade condi-
tions, roundwood sourcing from Russia to Europe will again become signifi-
cantly more difficult in the very near future. A plan to ban exports of softwood
and valuable hardwood from Russia was announced at the end of 2020
(Presidential instructions…2020). As a consequence, tariff quotas for soft-
wood (spruce and pine) are to be removed from 2022 onwards (Government
Decree…396). Under the valid regulation on customs duties, this will lead to
prohibitive duties – for softwood, a minimum of €55 m −3 (Government
Decree…754). A new development that has been raised is the possibility of
restricting the export of softwood chips. It has been suggested that softwood
chips be added to the products crucial for the internal Russian market on
which temporary export restrictions or an export ban can be imposed (Draft of
Government Decree…). The message is quite clear – harvested roundwood
should be processed in Russia to create value added.
References
Alberdi I, Michalak R, Fischer C, Gasparini P, Brändli U-B, Tomter SM et al (2016) Towards

harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe. For Policy
Econ 70:20–29
Alberdi I, Bender S, Riedel T, Avitable V, Boriaud O, Bosela M et al (2020) Assessing forest
availability for wood supply in Europe. For Policy Econ 111:102032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2019.102032
Anttila P, Nivala V, Salminen O, Hurskainen M, Kärki J, Lindroos TJ, Asikainen A (2018) Regional
balance of forest chip supply and demand in Finland in 2030. Silva Fenn 52(2):10.14214/sf.9902
Astrup R, Bernier PY, Genet H, Lutz DA, Bright RM (2018) A sensible climate solution for the
boreal forest. Nat Clim Chang 8:11–12
Barreiro S, Schelhaas M-J, McRoberts RE, Kändler G (eds) (2017) Forest inventory-based projec-
tion systems for wood and biomass availability. Springer, Cham
Blennow K, Persson E, Lindner M, Faias SP, Hanewinkel M (2014) Forest owner motivations and
attitudes towards supplying biomass for energy in Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 67:223–230
Brosowski A, Thrän D, Mantau U, Mahro B, Erdmann G, Adler P et al (2016) A review of biomass
potential and current utilisation – status quo for 93 biogenic wastes and residues in Germany.
Biomass Bioenergy 95:257–272
Camia A, Robert N, Jonsson R, Pilli R, García-Condado S, López-Lozano R, … Giuntoli J (2018)
Biomass production, supply, uses and flows in the European Union: First results from an inte-
grated assessment, EUR 28993 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
10.2760/539520
Cazzaniga NE, Jonsson R, Palermo D, Camia A (2019a) Sankey diagrams of woody biomass
flows in the EU-28. EC Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/227292
Cazzaniga NE, Jonsson R, Pilli R, Camia A (2019b) Wood resource balances of EU-28 and mem-
ber states. EC Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
https://doi.org/10.2760/020267
de Vries W, Solberg S, Dobbertin M, Sterba H, Laubhann D, van Oijen M et al (2009) The impact
of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by European forests and heathlands. For Ecol
Manag 258:1814–1823
Dees M, Elbersen B, Fitzgerald J, Vis M, Anttila P, Forsell N, … Höhl M (2017) Atlas with regional
cost supply biomass potentials for EU 28, Western Balkan countries, Moldavia, Turkey and
Ukraine. https://www.s2biom.eu/images/Publications/D1.8_S2Biom_Atlas_of_regional_
cost_supply_biomass_potential_Final.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2021
Di Fulvio F, Forsell N, Lindroos O, Korosuo A, Gusti M (2016) Spatially explicit assessment
of roundwood and logging residues availability and costs for the EU28. Scand J Forest Res
31:691–707
Energimyndigheten (2020) Production of unprocessed forest fuels by fuel type and feed-
stock origin. https://pxexternal.energimyndigheten.se/pxweb/en/?rxid=2c91707b-7c5e-40
5bb132-3aac75a4a172. Accessed 10 June 2020
Etzold S, Ferretti M, Reinds GJ, Solberg S, Gessler A, Waldner P et al (2020) Nitrogen deposi-
tion is the most important environmental driver of growth of pure, even-aged and managed
European forests. For Ecol Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117762
2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land-use
change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation
(EU) No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/841.
Accessed 21 May 2021
European Commission (2020) EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380
FAO (2020) FAOSTAT. Forestry production and trade. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/
FO. Accessed 8 June 2020
FAO, ITTO and United Nations (2020) Forest product conversion factors. Rome. https://doi.
org/10.4060/ca7952en
Flechard CR, Ibrom A, Skiba UM, de Vries W, van Oijen M, Cameron DR et al (2020) Carbon–
nitrogen interactions in European forests and semi-natural vegetation – part 1: fluxes and bud-
gets of carbon, nitrogen and greenhouse gases from ecosystem monitoring and modelling.
Biogeosciences 17:1583–1620
Forest Europe (2020a) State of Europe’s Forests 2020. https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-
forests-2020. Accessed 21 Dec 2020
Forzieri G, Pecchi M, Girardello M, Mauri A, Klaus M, Nikolov C et al (2020) A spatially explicit
database of wind disturbances in European forests over the period 2000–2018. Earth Syst Sci
Data 12:257–276
Gardiner B, Blennow K, Carnus J-M, Fleischer P, Ingemarson F, Landmann G, … Usbeck T

(2010) Destructive storms in European forests: Past and forthcoming impacts. Final report
to the European Commission. DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/
STORMS%20Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2021
Gold S, Korotkov A, Sasse V (2006) The development of European forest resources, 1950 to 2000.
For Policy Econ 8:183–192
Gschwantner T, Alberdi I, Balázs A, Bauwens S, Bender S, Borota D et al (2019) Harmonisation
of stem volume estimates in European National Forest Inventories. Ann For Sci. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13595-019-0800-8
Jactel H, Bauhus J, Boberg J, Bonal D, Castagneyrol B, Gardiner B et al (2017) Tree diversity
drives Forest stand resistance to natural disturbances. Curr For Rep 3:223–243
Jochem D, Weimar H, Bösch M, Mantau U, Dieter M (2015) Estimation of wood removals and
fellings in Germany: a calculation approach based on the amount of used roundwood. Eur J
For Res 134:869–888
Jonsson R, Blujdea V, Fiorese G, Pilli R, Rinaldi F, Baranzelli C, Camia A (2018) Outlook of the
European forest- based sector: Forest growth, harvest demand, wood-product markets, and for-
est carbon dynamics implications. iForest 11:315–328
Kärkkäinen L, Haakana H, Hirvelä H, Lempinen R, Packalen T (2020) Assessing the impacts
of land-use zoning decisions on the supply of Forest ecosystem services. Forests. https://doi.
org/10.3390/f11090931
Leskinen P, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Nabuurs GJ, Van Brusselen J, Kulikova E, Hassegawa M,
Lerink B (eds) (2020) Russian forests and climate change. What science can tell us 11.
European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/wsctu11
Lindner M, Dees M, Anttila P, Verkerk P, Fitzgerald J, Datta P, Glavonjic B, Prinz R, Zudin S
(2017) Assessing Lignocellulosic Biomass Potentials From Forests and Industry. In: Panotsou
C (Ed.), Modeling and Optimization of Biomass Supply Chains: Top-Down and Bottom-up
Assessment for Agricultural (pp. 127–167). Forest and Waste Feedstock. Academic Press
Moreno A, Neumann M, Hasenauer H (2017) Forest structures across Europe. Geosci Data
J 4:17–28
Nabuurs GJ, Verweij P, van Eupen M, Pérez-Soba M, Pülzi H, Hendriks K (2019) Next-generation
information to support a sustainable course for European forests. Nat Sustain 2:815–818
Natural Resources Institute Finland (2020) Solid wood fuel consumption in heating and
power plants by region. Statistical database. http://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/
LUKE04%20Metsa04%20Talous10%20Puun%20energiakaytto/01a_Laitos_ekaytto_maak.
px/?rxid=9a0b5502-10d0-4f84-8ac5-aef44ea17fda Accessed 10 June 2020
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in Central
Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
bances amplifying or canceling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European
forests? Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef1
Rinaldi F, Jonsson R, Sallnäs O, Trubins R (2015) Behavioral modelling in a decision support
system. Forests 6:311–327
Salmivaara A, Launiainen S, Perttunen J, Nevalainen P, Pohjankukka J, Ala-Ilomáki J et al (2020)
Towards dynamic forest trafficability prediction using open spatial data, hydrological model-
ling and sensor technology. Forestry 93:662–674
Schelhaas MJ, Fridman J, Hengeveld GM, Henttonen HM, Lehtonen A, Kies U et al (2018) Actual
European forest management by region, tree species and owner based on 714,000 re-measured
trees in national forest inventories. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207151
Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe
and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4:806–810
Seidl R, Thom D, Kautz M, Martin-Benito D, Peltoniemi M, Vacchiano G et al (2017) Forest dis-
turbances under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 7:395–402
Senf C, Seidl R (2020) Mapping the forest disturbance regimes of Europe. Nat Sustain. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41893-020-00609-y
Sotirov M, Sallnäs O, Eriksson LO (2019) Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and
forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem
goods and services at the landscape level. For Policy Econ 103:79–89
Stjepan P, Mersudin A, Dženan B, Petrovic N, Stojanovska M, Marceta D, Malovrh SP (2015)
Private forest owners’ willingness to supply woody biomass in selected south-eastern European
countries. Biomass Bioenergy 81:144–153
Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A (2011) The realisable potential supply of
woody biomass from forests in the European Union. For Ecol Manag 261:2007–2015
Verkerk PJ, Fitzgerald JB, Datta P, Dees M, Hengeveld GM, Lindner M, Zudin S (2019) Spatial
distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. For Ecosyst. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40663-019-0163-5
Vidal C, Alberdi IA, Hernández Mateo L, Redmond JJ (2016) National Forest Inventories: assess-
ment of wood availability and use. Springer, Cham
Vilén T, Cienciala E, Schelhaas MJ, Verkerk H, Lindner M, Peltola H (2016) Increasing carbon
sinks in European forests: effects of afforestation and changes in mean growing stock volume.
Forestry 89:82–90
Reference from Box 5.1
Anon (2017) Evaluation study of the forestry measures under rural development technical report.
September 2017 https://doi.org/10.2762/06029. 176 p
Anon (2020) World data atlas. https://knoema.com/atlas/Uruguay/topics/Land-Use/Area/
Forest-area
FAO (2020b) Global forest resource assessment 2020. Key findings. 14 .COM 2019. Stepping up
EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. COM 2019 352 final. 21 p
Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V, De Fries RS, Brockman M, Verchot L, Angelsen A, Romijn E
(2012) An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries.
Environ Res Lett 7(2012):12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009
Reference from Box 5.2
Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (2020). Otchet o rezul’tatakh sovmestnogo

ekpertno- analiticheskogo meropriyatiya “Analiz effektivnosti ispol’zovaniya lesnykh
resursov Rossiyskoy Federatsii v 2016–2018 godakh” [Report on the results of a common
expert-analytical measure “The analysis of efficiency of using forest resources in the Russian
Federation in 2016–2018”]
FAO (2020c) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report. Rome. https://doi.
org/10.4060/ca9825en
FAOSTAT (2021) Forest product statistics. Forestry production and trade. http://www.fao.org/fao-
stat/en/#data/FO. Accessed 17 May 2021
Finnish Forest Statistics (2020) Natural Resources Institute Finland
Forest code of the Russian Federation 04.12.2006 N 200-FZ
Forest Europe (2020b) State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe
Goltsev V, Lopatin E (2013) The impact of climate change on the technical accessibility of forests
in the Tikhvin District of the Leningrad region of Russia. Int J For Eng 24(2):148–160. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19132220.2013.792150
Gosudarstvennaya programma Rossiyskoy Federatsii “Razvitiye lesnogo khozyaystva” na
2013–2020 gody [State programme of the Russian Federation “Development of forestry”
2013–2020] Government Decree of the Russian Federation 18.03.2021 No. 396
Government Decree of the Russian Federation 30.8.2013 No. 754 (including changes upto
18.3.2021)
Havimo M, Mönkönen P, Lopatin E, Dahlin B (2017) Optimising forest road planning to maxi-
mise the mobilisation of wood biomass resources in Northwest Russia. Biofuels 8(4):501–514.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1302664
Presidential instructions following the meeting on the development and decriminalization of the
forest sector. 6.11.2020. http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/assignments/orders/64379. Accessed 17
May 2021
Draft of Government Decree “Changing the list of products especially important for the inter-
nal market of the Russian Federation…”. https://regulation.gov.ru/p/112935. Accessed 17
May 2021
Intensivnoye lesnoye khozyaystvo: Obyazannost ili osoznannaya neobkhodimost? [Intensive for-
estry: Responsibility or the recognition of necessity?] 2015. Ustoychivoye lesopol’zovaniye
1(41):34–41. https://wwf.ru/upload/iblock/b01/07-_5_.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2021
Karvinen S, Mutanen A, Petrov V (2019) Effects of the export restrictions on birch log market in
Northwest Russia. Balt For 25(1):105–112. https://doi.org/10.46490/vol25iss1pp105
Lopatin E (2017) Ranzhirovaniye uchastkov lesov Rossii po vozmozhnosti vnedreniya metodov
intensivnogo ustoichivogo lesnogo khozyaystva [Ranking of Russian forest areas possible
for intensive sustainable forest management]. Ustoichivoye lesopol’zovaniye No. 4(52):2–7.
https://wwf.ru/upload/iblock/b3f/01.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2021
Order of the Federal Forestry Agency 27.5.2011 N 191
Petrunin N (2013) Lesnoye bezdorozh’e (Roadless forest). “Derewo.ru” 5:30–33
Roslesinforg (2021) Lesa Rossii [Russian forests]. https://roslesinforg.ru/atlas. Accessed 17
May 2021
Rosleskhoz (2020) Svedeniya o zemlyakh lesnogo fonda [Information on the forest fund land].
http://rosleshoz.gov.ru/opendata/7705598840-ForestFund. Accessed 15 April 2020
Saint-Petersburg Forestry Research Institute (2015) Kontseptsiya intensivnogo ispol’zovaniya
i vosproizvodstva lesov [The concept of intensive use and regeneration of forests]. Saint
Petersburg Forestry Research Institute. FBU “SPBNIILH”, St. Petersburg
Shmatkov N (ed) (2013a) Intensivnoye ustoichivoye lesnoye khozyaystvo: Bar’ery i perspe-
ktivy razvitiya [Intensive sustainable forestry: Barriers and development perspectives]. WWF
Russia, Moscow
Shmatkov N (ed) (2013b). Strategiya razrabotki sistemy lesokhozyaystvennykh i prirodookhran-
nykh normativov dlya Sredne-tayezhnogo lesnogo rayona s tselyu vnedreniya modeli ustoi-
chivogo intensivnogo lesnogo khozyaystva [Strategy for compiling the forestry and nature
protection norms for the central taiga forest zone with the aim of implementing sustainable and
intensive forestry]. Materials of the round table 18 March 2013, St. Petersburg. WWF, Moscow
Shvarts E, Shmatkov H, Kobyakov K, Rodionov A, Yaroshenko A (2018) Nekotorye prichiny
krizisa lesnogo sektora i puti vykhoda iz nego [Some reasons for the crisis in the forest sector
and ways out]. Ustoichivoye lesopol’zovaniye No. 3(55):4–16. https://wwf.ru/upload/iblock/
e0b/02.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2020
State Council of the Russian Federation (2013). Doklad o povyshenii effektivnosti lesnogo kom-
pleksa [Report on increasing efficiency of the forest sector]. State Council of the Russian
Federation
Strategiya razvitiya lesnogo kompleksa Rossiyskoy Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2030
goda [Forest sector development strategy of the Russian Federation until 2030]. Confirmed by
Government Decree 11.2.2021 No. 312
Uotila E, Viitala E-J (2000) Tietiheys metsätalouden maalla. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1/2000:
19–33 (in Finnish). https://metsatieteenaikakauskirja.fi/pdf/article6910.pdf. Accessed 15
April 2020
Transliteration: BGN/PCGN romanisation of Russian
Yedinaya mezhvedomstvennaya informatsionno-statisticheskaya Sistema (2021) [The Unified
Interdepartmental Statistical Information System]. https://fedstat.ru. Accessed 17 May 2021
Chapter 6
Carbon Sequestration and Storage
in European Forests
Antti Kilpeläinen and Heli Peltola
Abstract European forests have been acting as a significant carbon sink for the last
few decades. However, there are significant distinctions among the forest carbon
sinks in different parts of Europe due to differences in the area and structure of the
forests, and the harvesting intensity of these. In many European countries, the forest
area has increased through natural forest expansion and the afforestation of low-
productivity agricultural lands. Changing environmental conditions and improved
forest management practices have also increased the carbon sequestration and stor-
age in forests in different regions. The future development of carbon sequestration
and storage in European forests will be affected both by the intensity of forest man-
agement and harvesting (related to future wood demand) and the severity of climate
change and the associated increase in natural forest disturbances. Climate change
may also affect the carbon dynamics of forests in different ways, depending on
geographical region. Therefore, many uncertainties exist in the future development
of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests, and their contribution to
climate change mitigation. The demand for multiple ecosystem services, and differ-
ences in national and international strategies and policies (e.g. the European Green
Deal, climate and biodiversity policies), may also affect the future development of
carbon sinks in European forests.
Keywords Carbon balance · Carbon sink · Carbon source · Carbon stock ·

Climate change · Forest ecosystem · Forest management · Growth · Net ecosystem
CO2 exchange · Mitigation
A. Kilpeläinen (*) · H. Peltola

113
© The Author(s) 2022
114 A. Kilpeläinen and H. Peltola
6.1 Current Carbon Storage and Sink
Forests can contribute significantly to the global carbon cycle and climate change
mitigation by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in forests (for-
est biomass and soil) and in wood-based products (with long life-cycles), and also
through the use of forest biomass to substitute for fossil-fuel-intensive materials,
products and fossil energy (Nabuurs et al. 2017; Leskinen et al. 2018). This is also
the case in Europe, where the majority of forests are managed. Forest management
has largely influenced the present tree species composition (Spiecker 2003) and
wood production potential (Rytter et al. 2016; Verkerk et al. 2019) of forests, and
will continue to do so for the coming decades (e.g. Koehl et al. 2010; Lindner
et al. 2014).
In Europe, the forest area and carbon storage have both increased since the 1950s
for several reasons. The forest area has increased by about 30% between 1950 and
2000, and by 9% since 1990 up to the present (Forest Europe 2020). This has
occurred through natural forest expansion and the afforestation of low-productivity
agricultural lands (e.g. Gold et al. 2006; Forest Europe 2015; Vilén et al. 2016). The
ratio of annual harvested timber to the total annual increment of forests is below
80% across Europe, remaining relatively stable for most countries for the last few
decades (European Environmental Agency [EEA] 2017). Additionally, improved
forest management practices and changing environmental conditions (e.g. nitrogen
deposition, climate warming and the elevation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations)
have increased the carbon sequestration and storage in European forests (e.g.
Pretzsch et al. 2014; Etzold et al. 2020). However, the growing (carbon) stock of
European forests has clearly increased more rapidly over the last few decades than
the forest area (e.g. 17.5 million ha between 1990 and 2015), as the average volume
per hectare has been increasing.
However, there are significant distinctions among the forest carbon sinks in dif-
ferent parts of Europe due to large differences in the forest area and structure (age
and tree species composition). These are related to differences in the prevailing
climatic and site conditions, the intensity of past and current forest management
activities, and the level of socioeconomic development (EEA 2016). In Northern
Europe, where the share of forest area is higher than in other parts of Europe, the
forest landscapes are dominated by mainly coniferous, (very often) single-species
and even-aged forests. In Central and Southern Europe, broadleaved deciduous and
mixed evergreen forests are more common (Forest Europe 2020). Overall, the for-
ests are more productive and have higher volumes of growing stock in Central
Europe than in other parts of Europe. Forest productivity is, nowadays, limited by
the length of the growing season and the relatively low summer temperatures in
Northern Europe, whereas in Southern Europe, it is limited by water availability,
with many forests also being located on sites with low potential for wood production.
The prevailing environmental conditions, current forest structure, management
traditions and different socioeconomic factors have also affected the intensity of
forest management. Management intensity varies from fully protective for
6 Carbon Sequestration and Storage in European Forests 115
biodiversity conservation, to uneven- and even-aged rotation forestry, which affects

forest carbon sequestration and storage. Forest ownership structures, and targets set
for forest management and its possible constraints, have also, together, affected the
intensity of forest management and harvesting, affecting the development of carbon
sinks and storage and the wood production potential of European forests (Rytter
et al. 2016; Verkerk et al. 2019). Currently, ca. 50% of forests in the EU are privately
owned, with about 16 million private forest owners (Nabuurs et al. 2015). In forest
management, different ecosystem services may also be emphasised to a greater
degree, depending on set targets and constraints in different regions (Hengeveld
et al. 2012; EEA 2016; Forest Europe 2020).
The growing (carbon) stock of European forests is currently double what it was
in the 1990s (Forest Europe 2020). The carbon-stock increases in forests and wood
products, and the average annual sequestration of carbon in the forest biomass, was
155 million t in 2020 (Forest Europe 2020). Currently, EU forests sequester ca. 10%
of Europe’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Forest Europe 2020). When consid-
ering the carbon storage in wood products (an additional ca. 12 Tg C year-1) and the
substitution effects of the forest sector, ca. 3% of the total GHG emissions in the
EU28 are avoided (Nabuurs et al. 2015). Furthermore, woody biomass provides ca.
6% of the energy consumed in the EU (Eurostat 2020). On the other hand, the first
signs of saturation in the European forest carbon sink were recognised in the 2010s
(Nabuurs et al. 2013). Despite this, the European forest carbon sink is still projected
to last for decades. However, there may be a need to adapt forest management and
utilisation strategies to promote the sequestration of carbon in forest sinks under the
changing climatic conditions. Whether the carbon sink contained in European for-
ests (and the broader forest sector) will remain at the same level as today, or increase/
decrease in the future, will strongly depend on changes in the forest area and struc-
ture, the intensity of management and harvesting, and the severity of climate change
and the associated increase in natural disturbances in different parts of Europe.
6.2 Dynamics of Carbon Sequestration and Storage

in a Forest Ecosystem
6.2.1 Basic Concepts of Carbon Dynamics

in a Forest Ecosystem
The carbon dynamics in a forest ecosystem comprise the carbon uptake by trees
(and ground vegetation) in the above- and belowground forest biomass, and carbon
release through the autotrophic (metabolism of organic matter by plants) and het-
erotrophic (metabolism of organic matter by bacteria, fungi and animals) respira-
tion. The forest ecosystem is a carbon sink if it absorbs more carbon from the
atmosphere than it emits, resulting in an increase in the carbon storage of the forest
(forest biomass and soil). The carbon dynamics of a forest ecosystem are controlled
Table 6.1 Commonly used basic concepts of the sources, sinks and storage of carbon in a forest
ecosystem
Carbon Capture of CO2 from the atmosphere and its transformation into biomass
sequestration through photosynthesis
Carbon storage Amount of carbon (stock) in the forest biomass and soil that has been removed
from the atmosphere and stored in a forest ecosystem through carbon
sequestration
Carbon sink A forest ecosystem is a carbon sink if it absorbs more carbon from the
atmosphere than it emits, resulting in an increase in carbon storage in the forest
ecosystem. The net ecosystem exchange is negative (NEE = NPP – RH, <0)
Carbon source A forest ecosystem is a carbon source if it emits more carbon into the
atmosphere than it absorbs, resulting in the consequent reduction of carbon
storage in the forest ecosystem. The net ecosystem exchange is positive
(NEE = NPP – RH, >0)
Carbon The carbon balance (NEE) of a forest ecosystem refers to the sum of carbon
balance absorbed by and emitted from the forest ecosystem. If the carbon absorption is
equal to the carbon emission, the carbon balance is zero
NEE net ecosystem CO2 exchange, NPP net primary production, RH heterotrophic soil respiration
by environmental (climate, site) conditions, and the structure (age, stocking, tree
species composition, etc.) and functioning of the forest ecosystem.
The carbon sequestration and stock of forest biomass may vary greatly in a forest
ecosystem over time, these are controlled by the initial stand characteristics, the
type and intensity of management (e.g. forest regeneration material, thinning and
fertilisation) (Routa et al. 2019) and the length of the rotation period (Lundmark
et al. 2018) or other time period being considered. The carbon stock in soil is gener-
ally relatively stable, although it is affected by carbon inputs from litter fall and
carbon outputs from the decay of litter and humus, the latter representing earlier
litter input of unrecognisable origin (Kellomäki et al. 2008). The decomposition of
old humus and litter contributes significantly to soil carbon emissions at the begin-
ning of the rotation period, but in the later stages of stand development, the decay of
new litter contributes more (e.g. Kilpeläinen et al. 2011). Generally, for most of the
duration of stand development, the stands act as carbon sinks (Table 6.1).
6.2.2 Management Effects on the Carbon Dynamics

of a Forest Ecosystem
Management intensity affects the carbon sequestration and stocks in forest ecosys-
tems through changing the structure and functioning of an ecosystem. A managed
forest ecosystem sequesters carbon as trees grow, but loses carbon in harvesting. By
comparison, in unmanaged forest ecosystems (e.g. old-growth forests), the carbon
dynamics are affected by the age structure, the mortality of mature trees, natural
regeneration and the ingrowth of seedlings in canopy gaps (Luyssaert et al. 2008).
The annual growth rate of trees can be higher in managed than in unmanaged (intact)
forest ecosystems, but the carbon sink is lower due to harvesting (Kellomäki 2017;
Moomaw et al. 2020). Older forest stands can store more carbon, but the rate at
which they remove additional carbon from the atmosphere is substantially lower,
and can even become negative as the mortality increases and exceeds the regrowth
(Gundersen et al. 2021). On the other hand, devastating abiotic (e.g. wind storms
and forest fires) and biotic (e.g. insect outbreaks) disturbances may cause a sudden
decrease in carbon sequestration and storage in forest ecosystems.
The use of appropriate, site-specific regeneration methods and materials (e.g.
improved regeneration materials with better growth rates and survival), the proper
timing and intensity of pre-commercial and commercial thinnings, and forest fertili-
sation on sites with limited nutrient availability, have been proposed as ways of
increasing carbon sequestration (and timber production) over one rotation in boreal
forests (e.g. Nilsen 2001; Saarsalmi and Mälkönen 2001; Bergh et al. 2014;
Haapanen et al. 2015; Hynynen et al. 2015). According to Olsson et al. (2005), in
addition to forest productivity, nitrogen fertilisation may also increase the sink and
storage of carbon in upland (mineral) soils in Norway spruce stands due to the
simultaneous increase in litter production and decrease in the decomposition of soil
organic matter and heterotrophic respiration in the soil. However, there have been
contradictory findings on the effects of nitrogen fertilisation on the decomposition
of soil organic matter and soil respiration (e.g. Magill et al. 2004; Frey et al. 2014;
Högberg et al. 2017). The maintenance of higher stocking in thinnings, together
with longer rotations, may also increase the annual mean carbon sequestration and
carbon stock in forest ecosystems over a rotation period (Liski et al. 2001; Routa
et al. 2019). Overall, carbon sequestration and storage may be increased in forests
in different ways by modifying current forest management practices. However, the
same measures may affect forests differently, as outlined in Table 6.2. Also,
Table 6.2 Possible measures to increase carbon sequestration and storage in forests over a stand
rotation
Carbon Carbon
Measures at stand level sequestration storage
Use of improved, more productive and climate-adapted forest + +
regeneration material
Proper region−/site-specific cultivation of different tree + +
species
Use of mixed-species stands +/− −
Maintenance of higher stocking in thinning + +
Use of fertilisation + +/−
Use of longer rotation − +
Use of shorter rotation in storm-, drought-, fire-, insect- or +/− −
fungus-prone forests
Decreased drainage (low-productivity peatlands) +/− +/−
No management +/− +
+ increase, − decrease, +/− direction of effect uncertain
20 10
A B
Soil decomposition, t CO2 ha-2yr-1

15
CO2 flow, t CO2 ha-2yr-1
8
10
Soil decomposition
5 6
0
4 Old humus
-5 NEE
-10 2
Sequestration New humus
-15
0
-20
-25
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Year Year
Fig. 6.1 Development of annual carbon flows of NEE (carbon sequestration + soil decomposition)
(a) and soil decomposition of new and old humus (b) in a boreal Norway spruce stand after a
clearcut over an 80-year rotation period with two thinnings at ages 40 and 60 years in southern
Finland. Redrawn from Kilpeläinen et al. (2011). Positive values denote carbon flowing to the
atmosphere, negative values denote carbon flowing to the ecosystem
management effects on the economic profitability of forest production should be

considered in practical forestry.
Figure 6.1 provides an example of the development of the net ecosystem CO2
exchange (NEE) of a boreal, even- aged Norway spruce stand on a medium-fertility
upland site over an 80-year rotation period, based on gap-type forest-ecosystem
model SIMA (Kellomäki et al. 2008) simulations (Kilpeläinen et al. 2011). Seedling
stands (2000 seedlings ha-1) act as a carbon source over the first 20 years after a
clearcut because the carbon sequestration is lower in young seedling stands than the
carbon emissions from decaying humus and litter in the soil. As carbon sequestra-
tion increases, a stand becomes a carbon sink. The mean annual carbon uptake over
80 years is 11.4 t CO2 ha-2 year-1, with the carbon emissions being 7.3 t CO2 ha-2
year-1. The thinnings at ages 40 and 60 years produce peaks in the carbon emissions
due to harvesting and the decay of logging residuals.
In Fig. 6.2, a simulated example of the development of NEE (Fig. 6.2a) and car-
bon stocks (Fig. 6.2b) in a forest ecosystem is demonstrated under business-as-
usual (baseline) thinning, 20% higher and lower tree stocking compared to the
baseline, and an unmanaged (unthinned) boreal Norway spruce stand (Alam et al.
2017) over two rotation periods (i.e. 160 years). Over the whole 160-year period,
the stands sequestered more carbon than they released (Fig. 6.2a). The NEE was the
highest under higher stocking and the lowest under lower stocking. The increased
carbon sequestration led to a 17% larger mean carbon stock (in the trees and soil)
than in the baseline thinning, while decreased stocking led to a 21% lower carbon
stock than in the baseline thinning. The mean carbon stock over the simulation
period was the largest under the unmanaged regime (445 and 197 t CO2 ha-1in the
trees and soil, respectively), while the mean carbon stock in the trees in the baseline
thinning was 191 t CO2 ha-1, and in the soil, 111 t CO2 ha-1 (Fig. 6.2b).
Fig. 6.2 (a) NEE under different management regimes in a Norway spruce stand under boreal
conditions over a 160-year period under different management regimes. (b) Development of eco-
system carbon stocks (expressed as CO2) in trees (top) and soil (bottom) under different manage-
ment regimes. Values in parentheses in the legends indicate mean NEE (a) and mean carbon stock
(b) over the simulation period. Each reduction in the tree carbon stock corresponds to the harvest-
ing of timber from the ecosystem and its mobilisation to the technosphere as harvested wood
products. After Alam et al. (2017)
Figure 6.3 shows an example of how alternative forest management regimes (use
of better-growing seedlings, nitrogen fertilisation, higher stocking in thinning)
might increase the simulated NEE of a forest ecosystem under even-aged manage-
ment in a boreal upland Norway spruce stand with (BT, basic thinning) and without
(BT-NO BIO, no bioenergy harvesting) harvesting logging residues from a clearcut.
The highest increases, compared to BT-NO BIO, were observed with the use of
improved seedlings in regeneration (i.e. 20% better growth than seedlings of forest-
seed origin) and nitrogen fertilisation (2–4 times during a rotation period at the
same time as thinning, depending on the management regime), along with the main-
tenance of (30%) higher stocking in thinnings over a rotation compared to the base-
line management. The increases in NEE in these regimes, compared to BT-NO BIO,
varied between 22 and 200%. Maintaining a higher growing stock over the rotation
also increased the carbon benefits when compared to BT.
6.3 Impacts of Management and Harvesting Intensity

on Carbon Storage in Forests
Forest resources comprise mosaics of single stands with varying climatic and site
conditions and forest structures (age, tree species composition and stocking), which
together affect the future of carbon sinks and storage in forests, and the forest har-
vesting potential, in different regions (Hudiburg et al. 2009; Kilpeläinen et al. 2017;
Fig. 6.3 Annual NEE (t CO2 ha-1 year-1) of a Norway spruce stand under alternative management
regimes, with harvesting of logging residues, stumps and coarse roots (BT, BTF, BTG and
BT30FG, NT) and baseline forest management (BT-NO BIO), with no harvesting of logging resi-
dues. F nitrogen fertilisation, G use of genotypes with 20% increased growth, BT30 use of 30%
higher stocking in thinnings, NT no thinning. (After Kilpeläinen et al. 2016)
Thom et al. 2018). At the regional level, the development of carbon sequestration
and carbon storage in forests is strongly affected by the initial age structure of the
forests, which also affects possible management measures over time (Baul et al.
2020). Therefore, differences in past forest management regimes in European coun-
tries will also reflect the future potential of increased carbon sequestration, wood
production and carbon stocks in forests.
Heinonen et al. (2017) showed that, with around 73 million m3 of annual timber
harvesting, the carbon storage of Finnish forests (forest biomass and soil), exclud-
ing forest conservation areas, may remain quite stable over the 90-year simulation
period, compared to a situation with the initial growing stock (Fig. 6.4). However,
with a lower even-flow timber harvest, the 40–60 million m3 levels may increase
significantly. On the other hand, despite the harvesting level, the forest carbon stock
starts to decrease after the first 40 years of the simulation period due to the changing
forest age structure. This decline is also relatively greater at a lower harvesting
intensity, which is associated with a larger share of unmanaged forests with decreas-
ing growth and increasing mortality over time. Heinonen et al. (2017) did not con-
sider either the effects of intensified forest management or climate change on the
forest growth, or natural disturbances. By intensifying forest management, for
example, by using improved regeneration materials and nitrogen fertilisation on
Fig. 6.4 Development of the carbon balance (i.e. the difference between sequestrated and released
carbon) in the forest biomass and soil in three cutting scenarios in Finland, for nine 10-year periods
under current climate. S40 and S60 denote cutting scenarios with 40 and 60 million m3 year-1 cut-
ting drains, respectively. In the SUS (sustainable) cutting scenario, the cutting drain was the high-
est possible (73 million m3 year-1), which it was assumed would not lead to decreasing growing
stock volume during the 90-year period without assuming improved forest management or climate
change. Redrawn from Heinonen et al. (2017)
Table 6.3 Possible measures to increase carbon sequestration and storage in European forests and
thus mitigate climate change
Carbon Carbon
Measures at regional (national) level sequestration storage
Increase forest growth by different measures + +
Reduce harvesting level + +/−
Increase forest conservation area + +/−
Reduce disturbance risks in storm-, drought-, fire- or insect- + +
prone forests by considering risk in adaptive management
Reduce deforestation and increase afforestation and reforestation + +
+ increase, – decrease, +/– direction of effects uncertain
upland forest sites, both the growing (carbon) stock and wood production could
increase under boreal conditions with minor climate change (e.g. the RCP2.6 forc-
ing scenario) in the coming decades (Heinonen et al. 2018a, b).
In European forests, the carbon storage (and sink) could be increased by modify-
ing current forest management practices and harvesting intensities. However, same
measures may affect the carbon sequestration and storage in different ways, espe-
cially over different time periods (Table 6.3).
When seeking to enhance the carbon storage in forests, it is important to bear in
mind that forest disturbances are likely to increase in the future, with changing cli-
mate (Seidl et al. 2014; Venäläinen et al. 2020). Given this, the risk of decreasing
forest carbon storage might increase, and therefore appropriate adaptation measures
would be required to minimise the harmful effects (see also Chap. 5). The severity
of climate change will also affect the carbon dynamics of forests through its effects
on forest regeneration, growth and mortality processes, as controlled by manage-
ment. These effects may also be contradictory, depending on the region.
Forests also contribute to climate through the absorption or reflection of solar
radiation, cooling as a result of evapotranspiration, and the production of
cloud-forming aerosols (Kalliokoski et al. 2020). These will affect the role of for-
ests in climate change mitigation. An increase in the aboveground forest biomass
and carbon stock, and the proportion of coniferous tree species in the growing stock,
may decrease the planet’s surface albedo (i.e. the reflection of solar radiation). This
may result in enhanced climate warming in opposition to a lower carbon stock and
greater proportion of broadleaf tree species (e.g. Lukeš et al. 2013). On the other
hand, in managed, even- and uneven-aged boreal Norway spruce stands with rela-
tively low average stocking over a management cycle, for example, the opposing
effects on radiative forcing of changes in the albedo and carbon stocks may largely
cancel each other out, providing few remaining net climate remediation benefits
(Kellomäki et al. 2021). Alternatively, the maintenance of higher ecosystem carbon
stocks in managed forests, or with no management, clearly implies greater net cool-
ing benefits. This is despite the lower albedo enhancing radiative absorption, and
thus enhancing warming. However, increasing the use of the no-management option
may require compensation for forest owners for lost harvest income (Kellomäki
et al. 2021).
Under sustainable forest management, the impacts of that management on eco-
system services other than carbon sequestration and its storage in forests, such as
the production of timber and non-wood products, the maintenance of biodiversity
and recreational value, should also be considered. This is important because carbon
storage in forests and the amount of deadwood (an indicator of biodiversity), for
example, correlate positively with each other, but negatively with harvested timber
volume and the economic profitability of forestry (Diaz et al. 2021). Lower manage-
ment and harvesting intensities will also lead to forest structures in which there are
more older trees, a larger share of broadleaves and a greater amount of deadwood
compared to forests under higher management and harvesting intensities (Heinonen
et al. 2017).
6.4 Uncertainties Associated with Future Carbon Storage

and Sinks
The future development of the carbon storage and sinks in European forests will be
affected by the intensity of forest management and harvesting (and thus wood
demand), the severity of the climate change (Kindermann et al. 2013) and the asso-
ciated increase in natural forest disturbances (Seidl et al. 2014) in the different
regions. In addition, the demand for multiple ecosystem services and different
national and international strategies and policies (e.g. European Green Deal, cli-
mate and biodiversity policies) will affect the intensity of forest management and
harvesting in those different regions. Thus, due to the complexity of the issue, there
are many uncertainties in the future development of carbon sequestration and stor-
age in European forests, and their ability to contribute to climate change mitigation.
In the EU Reference Scenario (EC 2016), forest harvests are projected to increase
by 9% between 2005 (516 million m3) and 2030 (565 million m3) due to a growing
Fig. 6.5 Development of the EU-28’s emissions/removals in the forest sector in Mt. CO2eq. up to
2050 (EC 2016)
demand for energy biomass and material use (Fig. 6.5). Consequently, forest growth
is projected to decrease by 3%, and the carbon sink in forests by 32%, by 2030. This
may be partially compensated for by increasing the carbon sink through afforesta-
tion and decreasing emissions from deforestation. In 2050, total forest growth is,
however, clearly predicted to be higher than the wood harvests in this Reference
Scenario (Fig. 6.5). Assuming a constant harvest scenario (e.g. Pilli et al. 2017), the
carbon sinks in the forest pools of the EU-28 are estimated to decrease by 6% in
2030 compared to the average of the historical period 2000–2029. On the other
hand, based on projections for forest resources under alternative management and
policy assumptions, the increased carbon storage in the EU-28 forests could provide
additional sequestration benefits of approximately up to 172 Mt CO2 year-1 by 2050
(Nabuurs et al. 2017).
With the right set of incentives in place at the EU and Member States levels, the
EU has the potential to achieve an additional mitigation impact of 441 Mt CO2 year-1
by 2050 (Nabuurs et al. 2017). The measures to achieve this would include improv-
ing forest management, expanding the forested area (afforestation), substituting for
fossil- based materials and energy by wood, and setting aside forest reserves for
short-term carbon sequestration. In addition to mitigating GHG emissions, the sug-
gested measures could also adapt and build forest resilience, sustainably increase
forest productivity and incomes, and tackle multiple policy goals set for the future
(see also Chap. 9).
Changes in the intensity of forest management and harvesting will affect the carbon
sequestration potential of forests and the carbon storage in forests. Using different
forest management measures could help to increase these. However, it should be
noted that enhancing the carbon storage in forests through management may also
increase the effects of natural forest disturbances, such as wind storms, fires, drought
and pests. Therefore, it is crucial to consider how to increase forest resilience in the
EU through forest management. Adapting thinning regimes, shortening rotation
periods and using improved regeneration materials may help to decrease the vulner-
ability of forests to various natural disturbances, as well as providing the means for
maintaining and enhancing forest carbon sinks. It should also be considered how
and under what conditions various silvicultural methods, such as stand density con-
trol, fertilisation and mixed-species forests, could help to maintain and improve the
adaptation capacity, resilience and mitigation potential of forests in parallel.
Besides forest carbon sequestration and storage, wood-based products can pro-
vide significant carbon storage. Wood products may also be used to substitute for
fossil-fuel-intensive materials, products and energy (Nabuurs et al. 2017; Leskinen
et al. 2018). However, regional conditions vary significantly across the EU. This
partly explains the difficulties involved in quantifying the mitigation impacts of the
EU-level forests and the forest-based sector. Moreover, the large diversity of abiotic
and biotic circumstances and management practices also makes it challenging to
generalise the results of individual studies to the EU level. On the other hand, varia-
tions in the growth potential and forest utilisation rates in the various value chains
create a wide range of options for adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change
in the EU, depending on regional conditions. Beyond adaptation and mitigation, the
simultaneous provisioning of multiple ecosystem services for society should also be
ensured, in a sustainable way, while increasing forest resilience to natural distur-
bances. This requires thought to be given to the uncertainties associated with cli-
mate change and the risks in forest-management decision-making, which are still
understudied topics, requiring further input.
6.6 Key Messages
• European forests have acted as carbon sinks for the last few decades due to
increases in the forest area, improved forest management and changing environ-
mental conditions.
• The future development of carbon sequestration and storage in European forests
will be affected both by the intensity of forest management and harvesting (asso-
ciated with future wood demand) and the severity of climate change and the
related increase in natural disturbances.
• The great diversity of abiotic and biotic circumstances, management practices
and forest utilisation levels in the different regions of the EU creates both a wide
range of options, but also challenges, for the adaptation to, and mitigation of,
climate change in different regions.
References
Alam A, Strandman H, Kellomäki S, Kilpeläinen A (2017) Estimating net climate impacts of forest
biomass production and utilization in fossil-intensive material and energy substitution. Can J
For Res 47:1010–1020
Baul TK, Alam A, Strandman H, Seppälä J, Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A (2020) Radiative forcing of
forest biomass production and use under different thinning regimes and initial age structures
of a Norway spruce forest landscape. Can J For Res 50(6):523–532. https://doi.org/10.1139/
cjfr-2019-0286
Bergh J, Nilsson U, Allen HL, Johansson U, Fahlvik N (2014) Long-term responses of Scots pine
and Norway spruce stands in Sweden to repeated fertilization and thinning. For Ecol Manag
320:118–158
Díaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Lexer M, Peltola H (2021) Multi-objective forestry increases
the production of ecosystem services. Forestry 94(3):386–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/
forestry/cpaa041
Etzold S, Ferretti M, Reinds GJ, Solberg S, Gessler A, Waldner P, Schaub M, Simpson D, Benham
S, Hansen K, Ingerslev M, Jonard M, Karlsson PE, Lindroos A-J, Marchetto A, Manninger M,
Meesenburg H, Merilä P, Nöjd P, Rautio P, Sanders TGM, Seidling W, Skudnik M, Thimonier
A, Verstraeten A, Vesterdal L, Vejpustkova M, de Vries W (2020) Nitrogen deposition is the
most important environmental driver of growth of pure, even-aged and managed European
forests. For Ecol Manag 458:117762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117762
European Commission (2016) EU reference scenario 2016. Energy, transport and GHG emissions.
Trends to 2050. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, Directorate-General
for Climate Action and Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. https://ec.europa.
eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20160713%20draft_publication_REF2016_v13.pdf.
Accessed 4th Jan 2021
European Environment Agency (2016). European forest ecosystems, state and trends. EEA Report
5/2016. https://doi.org/10.2800/964893
European Environment Agency (2017) Forest: growing stock, increment and fellings. https://
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-3/
assessment. Accessed 9 Jun 2020
Eurostat (2020) Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics – 2019th edn. https://doi.
org/10.2785/798761
Forest Europe (2015) State of Europe’s forests 2015 report. Forest Europe, Bonn
Forest Europe (2020) State of Europe’s forests 2020. Forest Europe, Bratislava
Frey SD, Ollinger S, Nadelhoffer K, Bowden R, Brzostek E, Burton A, Caldwell BA, Crow S,
Goodale CL, Grandy AS, Finzi A, Kramer MG, Lajtha K, LeMoine J, Martin M, McDowell
WH, Minocha R, Sadowsky JJ, Templer PH, Wickings K (2014) Chronic nitrogen additions
suppress decomposition and sequester soil carbon in temperate forests. Biogeochemistry
121(2):305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-014-0004-0
Gold S, Korotkov A, Sasse V (2006) The development of European forest resources, 1950 to 2000.
For Policy Econ 8:183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.07.002
Gundersen P, Thybring EE, Nord-Larsen T, Vesterdal L, Nadelhoffer KJ, Johannsen VK (2021)
Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature 591:E21–E23. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03266-z
Haapanen M, Janson G, Nielsen UB, Steffenrem A, Stener LG (2015) The status of tree breeding
and its potential for improving biomass production – a review of breeding activities and genetic
gains in Scandinavia and Finland. Skogsforsk, Uppsala
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Mehtätalo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analy-
ses for the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply,
carbon balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. For Policy Econ 80:80–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.011
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2018a) Scenario analyses on the effects of fertil-
ization, improved regeneration material, and ditch network maintenance on timber production
of Finnish forests. Eur J For Res 137:93–107
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2018b)
Effects of forest management and harvesting intensity on the timber supply from Finnish for-
ests in a changing climate. Can J For Res 48:1124–1134
Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs G-J, Didion M, van den Wyngaert I, Clerkx APPM, Schelhaas
M-J (2012) A forest management map of European forests. Ecol Soc 17(4). https://doi.
org/10.2307/26269226
Högberg P, Näsholm T, Franklin O, Högberg MN (2017) Tamm review: on the nature of the nitro-
gen limitation to plant growth in Fennos candian boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 403:161–185
Hudiburg T, Law B, Turner DP, Campbell J, Donato D, Duane M (2009) Carbon dynamics of
Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecol Appl
19:163–180. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2006.1
Hynynen J, Salminen H, Ahtikoski A, Huuskonen S, Ojansuu R, Siipilehto J, Lehtonen M,
Eerikäinen K (2015) Long-term impacts of forest management on biomass supply and forest
resource development: a scenario analysis for Finland. Eur J For Res 134:415–431
Kalliokoski T, Bäck J, Boy M, Kulmala M, Kuusinen N, Mäkelä A, Minkkinen K, Minunno F,
Paasonen P, Peltoniemi M, Taipale D, Valsta L, Vanhatalo A, Zhou L, Zhou P, Berninger F
(2020) Mitigation impact of different harvest scenarios of Finnish forests that account for
albedo, aerosols, and trade-offs of carbon sequestration and avoided emissions. Front For Glob
Change 3:1–112. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.562044
Kellomäki S (2017) Managing boreal forests in the context of climate change. In: Impacts, adapta-
tion and climate change mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed
boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Phil
Trans R Soc B 363:2339–2349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2204
Kellomäki S, Väisänen H, Kirschbaum MUF, Kirsikka-Aho S, Peltola H (2021) Effects of different
management options of Norway spruce on radiative forcing through changes in carbon stocks
and albedo. Forestry cpab010. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpab010
Kilpeläinen A, Strandman H, Alam A, Kellomäki S (2011) Life cycle assessment tool for estimat-
ing net CO2 exchange of forest production. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 3(6):461–471
Kilpeläinen A, Alam A, Torssonen P, Ruusuvuori H, Kellomäki S, Peltola H (2016) Effects of
intensive forest management on net climate impact of energy biomass utilisation from final
felling of Norway spruce. Biomass Bioenergy 87:1–8
Kilpeläinen A, Strandman H, Grönholm T, Ikonen V-P, Torssonen P, Kellomäki S, Peltola H
(2017) Effects of initial age structure of managed Norway spruce forest area on net climate
impact of using forest biomass for energy. Bioenergy Res 10:499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12155-017-9821-z
Kindermann GE, Schörghuber S, Linkosalo T, Sanchez A, Rammer W, Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013)
Potential stocks and increments of woody biomass in the European Union under different man-
agement and climate scenarios. Carbon Balance Manag 8:2
Koehl M, Hildebrandt R, Olschofsky K, Köhler R, Rötzer T, Mette T, Pretzsch H, Köthke M,
Dieter M, Abiy M, Makeschin F, Kenter B (2010) Combating the effects of climatic change on
forests by mitigation strategies. Carbon Balance Manag 5:8
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-Garcia S, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä J, Smyth C, Stern
T, Verkerk PJ (2018) Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation.
From science to policy 7. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, Schelhaas M-J,
Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Suckow F, Psomas A, Poulter B, Hanewinkel
M (2014) Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties,
and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manag 146:69–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.030
Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favour-
able to carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31:2004–2013. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-140
Lukeš P, Stenberg P, Rautiainen M (2013) Relationship between forest density and albedo in the
boreal zone. Ecol Model 261–262:74–79
Lundmark T, Poudel BC, Stål G, Nordin A, Sonesson J (2018) Carbon balance in production for-
estry in relation to rotation length. Can J For Res 48(6):672–678
Luyssaert S, Schulze E-D, Börner A, Knohl A, Hessenmöller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008)
Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215
Magill AH, Aber JD, Currie WS, Nadelhoffer KJ, Martin ME, McDowell WH, Melillo JM,
Steudler P (2004) Ecosystem response to 15 years of chronic nitrogen additions at the Harvard
Forest LTER, Massachusetts, USA. For Ecol Manag 196(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2004.03.033
Moomaw WR, Law BE, Goetz SJ (2020) Focus on the role of forests and soils in meeting cli-
mate change mitigation goals: summary. Environ Res Lett 15(4):045009. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b38
Nabuurs G-J, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Gunia K, Deda P, Michalak R, Grassi G (2013) First signs
of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim Chang 3(9). https://doi.
org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1853
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi
science to policy. European Forest Institute. doi:https://doi.org/10.36333/fs02
8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Nilsen P (2001) Fertilization experiments on forest mineral soils: a review of the Norwegian
results. Scand J For Res 16:541–554
Olsson P, Linder S, Giesler R, Högberg P (2005) Fertilization of boreal forest reduces both auto-
trophic and heterotrophic soil respiration. Glob Change Biol 11(10):1745–1753. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001033.x
Pilli R, Grassi G, Kurz WA, Fiorese G, Cescatti A (2017) The European forest sector: past and
future carbon budget and fluxes under different management scenarios. Biogeosciences
14:2387–2405. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2387-2017
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in
Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun 5:4967. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ncomms5967
Routa J, Kilpeläinen A, Ikonen V-P, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2019) Effects of inten-
sified silviculture on timber production and its economic profitability in boreal Norway spruce
and Scots pine stands under changing climatic conditions. Forestry 92(3):1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1093/forestry/cpz043
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
Saarsalmi A, Mälkönen E (2001) Forest fertilization research in Finland: a literature review. Scand
J For Res 16:514–535
Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer V, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and
their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4(9):806–810
Spiecker H (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of for-
ests in Europe—temperate zone. J Environ Manag 67(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0301-4797(02)00188-3
Thom D, Rammer W, Garstenauer R, Seidl R (2018) Legacies of past land use have a stronger
effect on forest carbon exchange than future climate change in a temperate forest landscape.
Biogeosciences 15:5699–5713
Venäläinen A, Lehtonen I, Laapas M, Ruosteenoja K, Tikkanen O-P, Viiri H, Ikonen V-P, Peltola H
(2020) Climate change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: a litera-
ture review. Glob Change Biol 26:4178–4196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183
Verkerk P-J, Fitzgerald JB, Datta P, Dees M, Hengeveld GM, Lindner M, Zudin S (2019) Spatial
distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. For Ecosyst 6:5. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40663-019-0163-5
Vilén T, Cienciala E, Schelhaas MJ, Verkerk PJ, Lindner M, Peltola H (2016) Increasing carbon
sinks in European forests: effects of afforestation and changes in mean growing stock volume.
Forestry 89:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv034
Chapter 7
Contribution of Wood-Based Products
to Climate Change Mitigation
Elias Hurmekoski, Jyri Seppälä, Antti Kilpeläinen, and Janni Kunttu
Abstract Forest-based products––often referred to as harvested-wood products

(HWPs)––can influence the climate through two separate mechanisms. Firstly,
when wood is harvested from forests, the carbon contained in the wood is stored in
the HWP for months to decades. If the amount of wood entering the market exceeds
the amount of wood being discarded annually, this can lead to a HWP sink impact.
Secondly, HWPs typically have a lower fossil carbon footprint than alternative
products, so, for example, using wood in construction can lower fossil emissions by
reducing the production of cement and steel, resulting in a substitution impact. The
international greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting conventions and the related
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance covers the HWP sink impact,
but not the substitution impacts. The HWP sink impact is restricted to tracing bio-
genic carbon flows, whereas the substitution impact typically covers fossil carbon
flows exclusively. Importantly, the substitution and HWP sink impacts do not repre-
sent the climate- change mitigation impact of wood use, as such. Instead, they are
important pieces of the broader puzzle of GHG flows related to the forest sector.
This chapter presents the state-of-the-art approaches for determining the HWP sink
and substitution impacts, and concludes with the policy and research implications.
Keywords Carbon storage · Climate-change mitigation · Displacement factor ·

Harvested wood products (HWPs) · Life-cycle assessment · Substitution impact
E. Hurmekoski (*)
J. Seppälä
A. Kilpeläinen
J. Kunttu

7.1 Contribution of Wood Products

to Climate-Change Mitigation
In harvesting, woody biomass is transferred from the ecosystem to the techno-

sphere. Wood is harvested to meet various needs, such as construction, energy,
hygiene and communication.
Forests and forest-based products have a wide range of impacts across the econ-
omy and the environment, and can therefore contribute to the United Nations (UN)
Sustainable Development Goals in several ways. The renewability of wood resources
can aid in improving resource efficiency when substituting for plastics, for example.
Favouring wood- based textiles in place of cotton-based textiles reduces the need
for fresh water for irrigation and obviates the need for pesticides, while releasing
land for afforestation or food production. Wood-based industrial prefabrication
practices can reduce the noise and dust pollution associated with construction. Bio-
based chemicals can reduce the eco-toxicity and human toxicity of commodities.
Such impacts can be captured using standardised life-cycle assessment (LCA)
methods. Besides a wider range of benefits, a more comprehensive analysis could
also reveal possible trade-offs, such as between climate and biodiversity, or between
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the livelihoods of small-scale entrepreneurs,
such as cotton farmers. However, to keep the scope manageable, in this chapter, we
focus only on the climate-change mitigation aspect of forest-based products.
Forest-based products or energy may compete with products or energy carriers
made from alternative materials. Substitute products can be defined as those prod-
ucts that provide interchangeable value or service in terms of economic utility or
technical function. Printed newspaper, wood-based textiles or carton board packag-
ing serve as examples of substitutes––they may be consumed in place of digital
media, cotton or plastic, respectively. Some forest products have no apparent substi-
tutes, such as toilet tissue, and thereby no competition, except for water.
Replacing products on the market can exert impacts on the climate due to the
different emissions intensities of the substitute products. There is uncontested evi-
dence that wood-based products are, on average, associated with lower fossil- based
GHG emissions compared to non-wood products or energy carriers (Sathre and
O’Connor 2010; Leskinen et al. 2018). In other words, by using wood products in
place of more fossil-emission-intensive materials, greater production-.related fossil-
based emissions can be avoided, thus avoiding the accumulation of additional atmo-
spheric carbon from the use of fossil resources. Thus, in the context of forest-based
climate-change mitigation, the term substitution impact refers to the amount of fos-
sil emissions avoided when using wood-based products or energy in place of alter-
native products or energy carriers.
Besides the substitution impacts, wood products can contribute to climate-
change mitigation by storing carbon in products for extended periods of time, which
can lead to a sink effect, typically referred to as harvested-wood product (HWP)
7 Contribution of Wood-Based Products to Climate Change Mitigation 131
carbon storage. HWPs1 act as temporary storage for the bio-based carbon seques-
trated by trees from the atmosphere. The impact of this carbon flow on net emis-
sions depends on the level of harvest and the products produced from wood. That is,
the HWP pool acts as a carbon sink when input to the product pool exceeds outflow
from the product pool (i.e. the product pool is increasing). In contrast, if the change
in the overall HWP carbon stock is negative, the HWP pool acts as a source of emis-
sions. In the GHG inventory reporting rules under the Paris Agreement, the HWP
sink impact of all HWPs manufactured in the producer countries is attributed to
producer countries, regardless of export destination (UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change [UNFCCC] 2018).
Unlike the carbon sinks represented by forests and HWPs, the substitution
impacts do not exist in the national inventory submissions for GHG reporting under
the UNFCCC, and they are thereby not a part of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) methodology for reporting emissions and removals.
Although this makes the substitution impacts invisible (Holmgren 2019), one can
argue that they are implicitly included in the form of reduced emissions in other
sectors, such as construction. However, the producer countries cannot therefore
directly benefit from the substitution impacts, as this would effectively lead to dou-
ble counting. That is, the producer would gain substitution credits explicitly, even
though these credits would already have been implicitly accounted for in the coun-
tries where the production of more emissions-intensive products were lowered as a
consequence of substitution, either in the export destinations of the HWPs or in
third-party countries that would have exported steel, for example. These substitu-
tion impacts can only be calculated and interpreted against a separately determined
reference, and are therefore not necessarily directly comparable to the absolute
reported emissions and sinks.
Substitution and HWP sinks can be a part of (national) climate policy, such as
when promoting wood construction in a government programme (e.g. Finnish
Government 2019), but should not be viewed in isolation from other climate- change
mitigation strategies (see Chap. 8). Despite their abstract nature, the substitution
and HWP sink impacts form an important part in the overall carbon flows associated
with forests and wood use to and from the atmosphere.
Climate-change mitigation measures are always forward-looking. Regardless of
the current situation, only additional measures compared to a baseline ought to be
regarded as mitigation. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between the substitution
impacts and HWP carbon sinks originating from the current use of wood and the
possible changes in the use of wood. The former gives an estimate of the amount of
emissions that would occur if non -wood products were used in place of HWPs––
that is, the already achieved mitigation. Only the latter (i.e. a marginal increase in
the use of wood) can possibly be attributed to further efforts on climate-change miti-
gation. However, substitution can occur both ways. A reduction in the market share
1
HWPs are synonymous with forest-based products. The term HWP has been established in tech-
nical and policy nomenclature, despite it seeming somewhat illogical.
of wood from the baseline may increase fossil emissions if, for example, wood was
replaced by coal in the energy sector or concrete in the construction sector.
Despite the fairly intuitive basic principles, quantifying the substitution and
carbon-storage impacts is technically complex and demanding. The results are also
highly dependent on the applied system boundaries and other assumptions. In this
chapter, we first introduce the basic approaches for quantifying HWP substitution
and sink impacts, and then draw attention to, and discuss, their potential pitfalls.
7.1.1 Product-Level Substitution Impacts
The estimation of substitution impacts caused by an HWP replacing a specific prod-

uct is the first step in estimating the total substitution impacts of wood utilisation. In
practise, the substitution impacts of HWPs are calculated with the help of product-
specific displacement factors (DFs). A DF measures how many units of fossil GHG
emissions are avoided when using one unit of HWP in place of a specific alternative
product. For example, if the DF for a product were 1 tCO2eq/m3, this would mean
that using 1 m3 of a wood-based product in a certain end use would avoid 1 t of
carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions.
The estimation of DFs is based on GHG data obtained from LCAs of HWPs and
their non-wood-product counterparts. The methodology for LCAs has been stan-
dardised (Finkbeiner et al. 2006), and there are guidelines for calculating LCAs
(Joint Research Centre 2010; PAS 2050:2011 2011; EN 15804:2012 2012). A nec-
essary requirement for the comparison of items is that pairs of wood-based and
non-wood-based products must have the same functional units, such as 1 m2 of a
building with the same functionality in terms of energy efficiency, for example. The
functional unit provides a reference against which the inputs (raw materials and
land use) and outputs (emissions) are calculated. The results of such calculations
vary depending on the data quality, system boundaries and assumptions used in the
life-cycle analyses that quantify the fossil GHG emissions of the compared products
using the same functional unit. Therefore, the resulting DF estimates are often prod-
uct specific.
Formally, the DF for product i is typically defined as:
GHGalternative − GHGwood
DFi = , (7.1)
WU wood − WU alternative
where GHGalternative and GHGwood are the fossil GHG emissions resulting from the
use of the non-wood and wood alternatives, expressed in mass units of carbon
derived from CO2 equivalents in a timeframe of 100 years, and WUwood. and
WUalternative are the amounts of wood used in the wood and non-wood alternatives,
expressed in mass units of carbon contained in the wood (Sathre and O’Connor
2010). Using standardised carbon units results in a unitless ratio (tonne C/tonne C),
which makes the DFs comparable across widely varying cases. A positive DF value
represents reduced emissions, where an alternative product is replaced by a wood-
based product, while a negative value stands for the opposite.
The DF ought to be disaggregated to separately assess the impacts of different
life-cycle stages––the production, use, cascading (reuse or recycle) and disposal
stages (Leskinen et al. 2018). It may be possible to attribute several life-cycle stages
to one DF, but doing so should be made explicit to avoid double counting.
Regarding the divisor in Eq. (7.1), the DFs can be estimated for either the amount
of wood (carbon) required to produce a wood-based product or the amount of wood
(carbon) contained in the final product. When upscaling the product -level substitu-
tion impacts to a region or a market, the latter approach is more straightforward to
apply, as this allows allocating the correct DF to the correct feedstock flow while
avoiding double counting (see Sect. 7.1.2).
Calculating DFs requires making a number of assumptions. For example, for
textiles, it is more straightforward than for a construction product, as one can assume
1 t of viscose to provide roughly the same function as 1 t of cotton or polyphenols,
while for construction products, one needs to consider at least the widely varying
densities of the materials and the design of the functions they provide in terms of
load-bearing capacity, service life, energy efficiency, fire load, etc.
Although DFs are specified for single-product pairs, their values can still range
significantly from one estimate to another. Also, there is large variation in DFs
between products and product categories (Table 7.1). Perhaps the most reliable
average DF values are for construction and energy, due to the relatively large num-
ber of cases assessed having relatively converging estimates. For example, for
chemicals, the DFs can vary significantly due to a very large number of possible
combinations of feedstock, pretreatment options, sugars, conversion technologies,
downstream processes, as well as end uses (Taylor et al. 2015).
Around half of all harvested wood is used for energy, including wood harvested
directly from forests or as sidestreams from and byproducts of wood harvesting and
industrial operations. When looking at emissions factors per unit of energy created,
the emissions from biomass burning are higher than those from burning fossil fuels
(e.g. Zanchi et al. 2012). As Table 7.1 suggests, bioenergy nevertheless results in
positive substitution impacts due to the DF capturing only fossil emissions, while
Table 7.1 Average displacement factors for broad product categories found in the literature
Average substitution impact for wood
Product category products (tC/tC)
Structural construction products 1.3
Non-structural construction products (e.g. window 1.6
panes, doors, flooring, cladding)
Textiles 2.8
Other (e.g. chemicals, furniture, packaging) 1–1.5
Average across all product categories 1.2
Energy 0.75
Soimakallio et al. (2016) for energy, Leskinen et al. (2018) for products
the biogenic emissions are accounted for in the land use, land-use change and for-
estry (LULUCF) sector (see Chap. 8 and Sect. 7.1.2). For the same reason, the cli-
mate impact of different bioenergy fractions may differ substantially, even if not
reflected in the DF. That is, while the DF will be different depending on which
energy source the woody biomass is assumed to be substituting for, the release of
biogenic emissions in a counterfactual situation depends on, for example, whether
the biomass fraction is solid wood or byproducts and residues that would decay
more quickly if left in forests and not used for energy (e.g. Repo et al. 2012).
Based on a comprehensive review of studies that have estimated DFs for wood-
based products, the average DF for all included life-cycle stages has been estimated
to be 1.2 tC/tC across a wide range of wood products and substitute products
(Leskinen et al. 2018). This compares to an average of 2.1 tC/tC, determined previ-
ously by Sathre and O’Connor (2010). Although there can indeed be systematic
changes through time in the average DFs, the apparent difference between these two
average estimates may be partly incidental, but may also reflect differing scopes for
determining the DFs, such as in terms of separating biogenic and fossil carbon flows.
Importantly, the average substitution impact found in the literature (1.2–2.1 tC/
tC) should not be used as such, as it does not have a meaningful interpretation, for
at least two reasons. Firstly, the value is an arithmetic average of all those cases that
have been assessed in the literature so far, but ignores those wood uses that have not
been assigned a DF. Assessing an average DF for an entire market is more compli-
cated than defining a DF for a single pair of products. To estimate a weighted DF for
the overall wood use, it would be necessary to determine all wood flows related to
forest- based products and all of the alternative products that the forest-based prod-
ucts are substituting for. Taking the average DF reported in the literature and multi-
plying it by the total wood use to estimate the overall substitution impacts of wood
use would ignore the wood flows and those wood uses that have no substitution
impacts, therefore yielding a flawed result. Secondly, these DFs capture only the
difference in fossil-based emissions, while the biogenic carbon emissions are
counted as changes in the carbon stocks in forests and HWPs, which adds an impor-
tant aspect of time dynamics due to the circulation of carbon in ecosystems versus
permanent fossil emissions. The static product-level DFs therefore do not capture
the full impact of using wood on the climate over time, but do provide an important
piece of the overall calculation framework (see Chap. 8). In the following, we exam-
ine the process of upscaling substitution impacts from the product level to the mar-
ket level.
7.1.2 Market-Level Substitution Impacts
There is no single, established way of deriving market-level substitution impact

estimates. Besides assumptions, the approaches can differ in terms of the scope of
the upscaling exercise. Similarly to the different approaches used for calculating the
HWP sink impact (Rüter et al. 2019), the substitution impacts can be defined using
production data, consumption data or value-chain data (Knauf 2015). However, the
differences, in terms of calculation routines, are minor.
Deriving product-level substitution impact estimates requires having data on: (i)
the volume of demand (in mass units of carbon, tC) for a product or energy carrier;
(ii) the end-use distribution of the product (share of all end uses, %); (iii) the mix of
substitute products in the end market (market share, %); and (iv) a DF (tC/tC) for all
substitution cases (a product replacing another product in a specific end use). Taking
dissolving pulp, primarily used for textile fibres, as an example, Table 7.2 shows
which data are needed to derive a volume-weighted DF for an intermediate product.
These assumptions are very streamlined, as the case ignores other fibres in the mar-
ket, such as traditional wool and, more importantly, the emerging recycled fibres of
various origins. The case also assumes that all viscose and lyocell products perform
the exact same function as the fibre they are substituting for, which is unlikely to be
the case in reality. The products may have different qualities, such as moisture-
wicking properties, proneness to wrinkles, ability to be washed at different tempera-
tures, etc. Moreover, the average energy mix and production structure differs
between regions, which means different DFs for different regions; that is, the DFs
are not only product specific, but also region specific. Lastly, defining a weighted
DF for the end uses of dissolving pulp other than textiles would require an extensive
survey, as there are dozens of end uses, with dissolving pulp displacing possibly
more than one other material in each end use. Probably, the overall weighted DF for
dissolving pulp could therefore be higher than the case suggests, as a quarter of the
volume, with dozens of end uses, is ignored.
If the products were more complex than in the case of textile fibres, extensive
background analysis would be required to define all possible substitution cases and
their respective DFs. For example, different structural solutions in construction
(light frame versus massive frame) can produce a tenfold difference in the relative
wood-use intensity (cubic metres of wood used per square metre of a building) to
gain the same functionality, which ought to be mirrored in the respective DF esti-
mates to avoid large errors. There are also differences, for example, between the
end-use distributions of different wood species (Poljatschenko and Valsta 2021).
Moreover, there are opposite points of view––whether wood-based energy ought to
Table 7.2 Hypothetical example of the data required to derive a displacement factor (tC/tC) for
dissolving pulp
DF
Specific Displacing what/ (production Weighted
End use/share product/end use share stage) DF
Textiles 75% Viscose 50% Polyolefins 75% 1.0 1.11
Cotton 25% −0.28
Lyocell 50% Polyolefins 75% 2.59
Cotton 25% 1.3
Other (explosives, 25% – –
detergents, sausage
skins, etc.)
be assumed to substitute for an average energy mix or for fossil fuels only. Again,
the assumptions in such cases ought to be made case by case, as the marginal energy
sources may differ, for example, in heat production and power production, and may
vary between regions.
Once the data (i–iv) have been gathered and the necessary assumptions made, the
production-stage substitution impact (PSI) for a single product or energy carrier, i,
can be calculated as:
PSI i ( t ) = DFi ( t ) × Si ( t ) , (7.2)
where DFi is the volume-weighted DF for the avoided fossil-based GHG emissions
(expressed as tC) per carbon contained in product i (tC), Si is the annual volume of
a wood product produced (MtC year−1) and t is year. For example, taking the annual
production of dissolving pulp in the world in 2018 (8.4 Mt) and multiplying it by the
weighted DF from the example in Table 7.2 (1.11 tC/tC), an estimate of avoided
emissions of 9.3 MtCO2eq/year is derived.
A similar exercise could be performed for all relevant life-cycle stages. For
example, the energy recovery of wood- based products at their end-of-life can yield
substitution impacts. The end-of-life substitution impact (ESI) for product i are
determined as:
ESI i ( t ) = DF _ EoLi ( t ) × OFi ( t ) , (7.3)
where DF_EoLi is the avoided fossil-based carbon emissions (tC) per carbon con-
tained in product i (tC) for the end-of-life stage (incineration), and OF is the outflow
from the HWP pool (MtC year−1); that is, the volume of wood products accumulated
over decades of historical wood harvesting exiting the HWP pool as the wood prod-
ucts in use are gradually discarded. For example, assuming that the annual outflow
of products based on dissolving pulp from the HWP pool was the same as the annual
production in 2018 (8.4 Mt) (i.e. assuming a steady state HWP pool), and multiply-
ing this volume by a DF for energy (0.7 tC/tC), avoided emissions of 5.9 MtCO2eq/
year would be estimated. Together, the avoided fossil emissions from the production
and end-of-life stages would, in this hypothetical case, amount to 15.2 MtCO2eq/year.
Note that, without a separately defined reference for the interpretation, this over-
all estimate refers to the amount of avoided fossil emissions compared to a hypo-
thetical situation in which no wood would be used, and cannot therefore be directly
compared, for example, to the absolute HWP sink impacts that portray the changes
in carbon stocks in a distinct time period. To make the substitution impact compa-
rable, it is necessary to calculate the impact of a marginal change in the system
compared to a counterfactual scenario (see Chap. 8); that is, to focus on the addi-
tional substitution impacts.
To derive the substitution impacts for the total wood use in a given region and
time period, data (i–iv) should be gathered for each current or emerging wood-based
product and the product they are substituting for. If the different biomass streams for
the production and end-of-life stage substitution impacts are disregarded, the
average DF of overall wood use can be calculated by summing up the substitution

impacts of all products and dividing the sum by the amount of carbon contained in
the total harvested biomass delivered to the technosphere. Detailed data on wood
flows is required for this task, in order to, for example, estimate the material losses
in harvesting and wood processing, and the share of wood-based energy used in the
production of wood-based products.
Importantly, the resulting substitution impact should not, as such, be considered
to be the climate-change mitigation potential of wood-based products due to the
separation of biogenic and fossil emissions. That is, the relative benefit of wood-
based products compared to alternative products (a positive DF value) is mostly a
consequence of tracking only fossil emissions and not biogenic emissions (Rüter
et al. 2016). The energy used in the production of HWPs originates, to a great extent,
from wood residues. Following the IPCC methodology, bioenergy is calculated as
carbon neutral (zero emissions) in energy production because biogenic emissions
are considered in full in the LULUCF sector. In effect, harvesting wood reduces
forest carbon sinks for a certain amount of time, which depends on regional circum-
stances, such as the forest growth rate and management regime. Even though, under
sustainable forest management, biogenic carbon can be assumed to circulate
between the ecosystem, the technosystem and the atmosphere, the carbon payback
time can be so long––up to a century––that it needs to be considered in climate
policy (see Chap. 8). While there can be other analytical approaches for dealing
with the separation of biogenic and fossil emissions, excluding biogenic emissions
from the DFs avoids double counting when assessing the net emissions of the forest-
based sector. On the other hand, this highlights the role of tracing the exact wood
flows for the entire wood-use system. To avoid double counting, substitution impacts
should not be allocated to the sidestream flows going into the internal bioenergy use
of forest-based product mills. However, energy production that is not consumed in
the production process of wood-based products causes substitution impacts similar
to those of the product use. Despite the importance of understanding the implica-
tions of the assumption concerning carbon-neutral bioenergy, the positive DF values
can also partly be explained by the lower embodied energy of HWPs (less energy
needed in their production) and the end-of-life energy recovery of wood-based
products (substituting fossil energy when a HWP is incinerated at its end-of-life).
Clearly, deriving the substitution impacts for the total wood use is a daunting
task. Consequently, substitution analyses have so far typically focused only on well-
known, large-volume markets and have made several simplifying assumptions to
keep the analysis manageable (Holmgren 2019). Moreover, as market-level substi-
tution analyses tend to be forward- looking, one should consider how the wood-
products markets, as well as the markets of the competing products, evolve over
time. As demonstrated in Chap. 4, there are several plausible pathways for the
evolving uses of wood. However, in practical terms, it can be impossible to reliably
determine some of the DFs for future markets, as it is not possible to trace the evolv-
ing emissions profiles of novel wood-based products, nor those of the competing
products. Clearly, the accuracy of the estimates is limited by the complexity of the
market and the consequent lack of data, which calls for careful documentation and
sensitivity analysis.
Given the challenges in the implementation and interpretation of overall substi-

tution impact estimates, it may be more fruitful to assess mitigation scenarios with
varying wood-use structures, and compare these scenarios against a reference (see,
e.g., Brunet-Navarro et al. 2021), rather than focus on perfecting a single-point esti-
mate. While this is more relevant for decision-making, it adds another layer of com-
plexity due to the necessity to address various dynamic, and partly indirect, market
responses (e.g. Howard et al. 2021).
7.1.3 Carbon Sinks of Harvested-Wood Products
Besides substitution, HWPs can contribute to climate-change mitigation by storing

carbon in biomass for a certain time period, from months to centuries. The reason
why the carbon stocks of HWPs are taken into account in the GHG calculations is
related to the rules of the national GHG emissions inventory, determined by the
UNFCCC process. According to that process, the carbon associated with wood bio-
mass harvested and delivered to the technosphere is considered as emissions, as it
decreases the carbon stock in forests. To fine-tune this streamlined assumption, by
considering the extended lifetime of biogenic carbon in the technosphere, the car-
bon flows in products should be monitored in the annual carbon balance
calculations.
An increase in the HWP carbon storage is assigned a negative value when report-
ing the net emissions of the forest- based sector, which refers to a sink effect.
However, this is only true in terms of notation and should not be confused with the
net ecosystem production (see Chap. 6). The carbon that has been sequestered by
living trees in the biomass is transferred to the HWPs and stored there for a certain
time. Thus, the carbon storage itself does not imply mitigation. A mitigation impact
is achieved when there is an increase in the HWP carbon stock in the technosphere
(i.e. when the input to the product pool is greater than the outflow from the product
pool). If there is no change in the volume of the harvest, nor in the product portfo-
lios, there is no change in the HWP carbon stock, in which case the stock change
(sink impact) remains zero. As with substitution, the HWP stock change can occur
both ways––if the HWP carbon stock is reduced, the HWP pool turns into a source
of carbon. Whether this results in net benefits or losses for the climate over a certain
time period is determined by simultaneously assessing the entire scope of carbon
pools and flows in the forest sector through time (see Chap. 8).
If the initial carbon pool of HWPs is zero, or already saturated, the mitigation
impact of HWP carbon storage can be increased either by increasing the level of
harvesting or by increasing the relative share of wood-based products with long life-
spans, such as wood construction products, in the total harvest. The net emissions
balances of these two strategies are not necessarily equal in terms of climate-change
mitigation over the next few decades. That is, depending on the forest growth condi-
tions and the product portfolio, an increase in the level of harvesting can reduce the
carbon sink of forests for a longer time period than the carbon can remain stored in
HWPs, on average (Heinonen et al. 2017). However, any such conclusions ought to
be assessed by comparing the impacts against a holistic counterfactual scenario (see
Chap. 8) due to various indirect and cascade impacts.
Compared to substitution, the HWP sink is more straightforward to estimate.
This is partly because it is included in the international GHG reporting guidance by
the IPCC (Rüter et al. 2019). However, it should be noted that the four approaches
detailed in the GHG reporting guidance (stock change, production, atmospheric
flow, simple decay) have differences in terms of their conceptual frameworks and
system boundaries (Rüter et al. 2019). The system boundary may cross national
borders, such as when applying the ‘production’ approach, in which the producing
country reports carbon stock changes from HWPs produced by that country, regard-
less of where the HWPs are consumed and used (Rüter et al. 2019). Thus, the policy
processes have been aimed at agreeing on the use of a common method for all par-
ties to avoid double counting across national GHG inventories in order to facilitate
the global stocktake of climate-change mitigation measures.
Despite there being more peer reviewed literature on the HWP sink impact than
on the substitution impact, there are still considerable uncertainties in the assump-
tions related to HWP sink estimates. Notably, the product half-lives are generally
assumed to vary between 0 (e.g. bioenergy) and 35 (e.g. sawnwood), but they remain
very difficult to assess reliably (e.g. Iordan et al. 2018). While the HWP sink impact
is currently marginal compared to the substitution impact, this could change in the
future due to the expected average decline in the substitution impacts and the simul-
taneously expected increase in the cascade use of wood (i.e. the reuse or recycling
of wood), which would extend the lifetime of the carbon in the technosphere before
it being released back to the atmosphere.
7.2 Scale and Future Outlook of Substitution Impacts

and Harvested-Wood Product Sinks
7.2.1 Scale of Substitution Impacts and Sinks

of Wood-Based Products
Before jumping to the estimates of overall substitution and HWP sink impacts,
some caveats must be re-emphasised. Importantly, the absolute substitution impact
values alone should not be interpreted as the climate benefits of wood use or as the
climate-change mitigation potential. Instead, they are components of the overall
carbon flow; they do not necessarily provide a meaningful interpretation in isolation
from other parts of the studied system and without comparison to a common refer-
ence. To guide managerial or policy decision-making, it is necessary to calculate the
overall substitution impacts of wood use and use this information in calculating the
net GHG emissions of the forest-based sector under different forest management
regimes and market structures (see Chap. 8).
There are very few systematic analyses of the overall substitution impacts at the
global or European levels that depict the scale of fossil emissions avoided compared
to no wood use. At the global level, Roe et al. (2019) estimated that the avoided
emissions potential from increasing the demand of wood products to replace con-
struction materials ranged from 0.25 to 1 GtCO2eq/year. At the European level,
Holmgren (2020) estimated that the currently avoided emissions from the industrial
and energy uses of wood account for −410 MtCO2eq/year (not considering the fos-
sil emissions of the forest-based value chains of 51 MtCO2eq/year). In Finland, the
current annual substitution impacts of forest-based-sector activities have been esti-
mated as accounting for between 16.6 and 35 MtCO2eq, with a domestic harvest
level of 65–70 Mm3 (Soimakallio et al. 2016; Alarotu et al. 2020; Hurmekoski et al.
2020). According to the National Inventory Report submissions under the UNFCCC,
the HWP sink impact in the EU was −40.6 MtCO2eq/year in 2017, whilst in Finland,
it has varied between −6.6 and 1.6 MtCO2eq/year since 1990. Future research may
be able to provide more detailed estimates and a more comprehensive geographical
context.
The absolute carbon pools related to forests are highly sensitive to the level of
harvesting, which can mean large annual fluctuations. One option to alleviate this
issue, in the context of substitution impacts, is to focus on the average values across
total wood use (tC/tC). Mirroring the overall shortage of substitution estimates,
there are also not many studies globally that have approximated the weighted DF for
overall wood use on a national level. These estimates range between 0.3 and 1.2 tC/
tC in different scenarios and with varying geographical and product scopes, with an
average of around 0.5 tC/tC (e.g. Werner et al. 2010; Braun et al. 2016; Suter et al.
2017; Kayo et al. 2018; Hurmekoski et al. 2020). It can be seen that the national-
level average substitution impact can be smaller than the average DF reported from
meta- analyses (1.2–2.1 tC/tC) (Sathre and O’Connor 2010; Leskinen et al. 2018),
which makes it all the more important to keep these values separate and to under-
stand the reason behind the difference––the scope of the wood flows and product
portfolios considered.
7.2.2 Future Trends for Substitution Impacts

and Harvested-Wood Product Sinks
Future estimates of substitution impacts are uncertain, not only because of the long
time frames, per se, but more because of the ongoing structural changes in the
forest-based industries and their possibly evolving competitive positions. Some of
the new wood-based products may have superior environmental performance com-
pared to the current state, such as alternative solvent processes for regenerated cel-
lulose fibres for textiles (Rüter et al. 2016). This could increase the average
substitution impact of wood use if produced in place of the declining communication-
paper market, to which no significant substitution impact can be attributed
(Achachlouei and Moberg 2015).
At the same time, we should expect an opposite trend that will diminish the aver-
age substitution impacts of wood use, such as emissions reductions in the energy and
industrial sectors to comply with the Paris Agreement target (e.g. Harmon 2019).
That is, these alternative products tend to be more energy intensive than wood-based
products, as indicated by positive DF values. When the average emissions from
energy production are lowered, the emissions reductions of the competing products
will be relatively greater than for wood-based products, thereby diminishing the
relative benefit of wood use. Besides the emissions from energy production, there
may be large reductions in the energy intensity of production processes, as well as
process-related emissions. For example, in the construction sector, the emissions
from calcination in the cement production process, which currently produces around
half the total emissions in cement production, could eventually be diminished (e.g.
Licht et al. 2012). In the chemicals and biofuels sector, CO2 could be captured and
used as a feedstock (e.g. Kruus and Hakala 2017), which could entirely change the
logic of substitution impact estimates, if applied on a large scale. Thus, when fossil
emissions are eventually phased out, there will be no fossil emissions to be avoided,
leading to a zero substitution impact potential, regardless of wood use.
In addition to direct emissions, the importance of recycling has been recognised
in the European Union Circular Economy action plan, which aims to improve
resource efficiency by keeping the value of materials, products and resources in the
technological ‘closed loop’ system for as long as possible by, for example, reuse,
recycling and product design (European Commission 2015). Technological solu-
tions may contribute to this target by: (i) minimising the virgin feedstock demand;
and (ii) improving the reuse and recycling possibilities of materials. The expected
increase in the recycling rates of non-wood products may further diminish the sub-
stitution impacts of forest-based products, such as in the case of replacing recycled
plastic compared to primary plastic. The impact of wood cascading on the substitu-
tion impacts remains unclear, depending on whether, for example, the recycled
wood products create additional demand, or if they substitute for existing wood
products. Production technologies that improve the durability, recyclability or
resource efficiency of wood-based products, such as laser scanning, improved saw-
ing techniques, waste separation technologies and recycling technologies, would
increase the HWP sink.
Thus, without investments in new wood-based products with superior environ-
mental profiles, the average substitution impacts of wood use can be expected to
diminish (e.g. Keith et al. 2015). This interplay of hypothetical developments and
innovations in the wood-based products sector and in competing sectors makes the
outlook very uncertain. Moreover, where the wood products and competing prod-
ucts are produced can make a difference, as the average energy profile and the pace
of emissions reductions may be different from one region to another. However, from
the environmental and societal perspectives, the competition between forest-based
products and alternative products is welcome, as it strengthens the incentives for
developing products and processes that cause less harm for ecosystems.
While there are still huge barriers to the large-scale uptake of novel negative
emissions technologies, they will be necessary in the long-term, due to the sluggish
rate of global emissions reductions (IPCC 2018). Introducing negative emissions

technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or bio-
char, in the forest value chain, could also influence the relative benefits of wood-
based products. However, this dynamic would not necessarily be captured by the
DFs, if they only track fossil emissions, and should therefore be reflected elsewhere
in GHG inventories. This could have implications both for research and policy.
Research should consider whether the use of DFs is the most appropriate approach
in such cases, and international agreements should determine who would benefit
from the uptake of such technologies. These decisions could possibly influence the
rate of BECCS market uptake.
7.3 Role of Harvested Wood Products

in Climate-Change Mitigation
Seppälä et al. (2019) introduced the concept of a required DF, which depicts the
required scale of substitution impacts that would exceed the temporary loss of eco-
system carbon when wood is being harvested. In other words, it depicts the minimum
value for the average substitution impacts that would result in an immediate net
reduction of emissions, despite an increased level of harvesting. The level of the
required DF that would satisfy this condition has been estimated to be between 1.9
and 2.5 tC/tC (Seppälä et al. 2019; Köhl et al. 2020). This compares to an estimated
current weighted overall substitution impact of around 0.5 tC/tC in Finland
(Soimakallio et al. 2016; Hurmekoski et al. 2020), suggesting that the substitution
impacts alone would not be large enough to compensate for the loss of the forest
carbon sink , even in the medium- and long-term. In other words, in the Finnish con-
text, a marginal increase in the use of wood is unlikely to reduce the net carbon emis-
sions of wood use within the timespan of a century (see also Heinonen et al. 2017).
The Finnish forest sector is characterised by long rotation periods (60–120 years), an
intensive forest management regime with a young-stand-dominated age class struc-
ture, a relatively low level of natural disturbances, and a pulp- and paper-dominated
industry structure, which together help to explain this difference. In other regions, the
circumstances may allow opposite conclusions within a reasonable time frame.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the scope of the analysis leading to
these conclusions is limited. Added to the uncertainty of the substitution and carbon
sink estimates of forests and their products, such analyses tend to disregard other
possibly relevant determinants of net emissions, such as the possible risks and ben-
efits associated with the impact of climate change on forests, including increased
forest growth and the different abiotic and biotic damage caused to forests by wind-
storms, drought, insects, pathogens and forest fires. Such elements may have a deci-
sive impact on the conclusions, although state-of-the-art research faces difficulties
in capturing them all under a single framework. Moreover, mitigation strategies are
naturally influenced by a holistic assessment of efficiency and feasibility, which
broadens the scope from physical carbon flows to, for example, the incentives cre-
ated by harvesting income to finance further mitigation measures.
Regardless of the harvest level, the net emissions of the forest-based sector can,
at least in principle, be reduced by changing the process and production structure to
increase resource efficiency and the share of products with very high DFs and long
life-spans, in addition to increasing the carbon sequestration with the help of for-
estry practices. More specifically, in terms of climate-change mitigation, improve-
ments in the wood utilisation patterns from the perspective of the climate can be
divided into two general actions: (i) reducing the share of energy involved in overall
wood use, and satisfying the operational energy demand of the pulp mills and saw-
mills through alternative, low-emissions energy sources or by increasing the energy
efficiency of such mills; or (ii) improving resource efficiency in the manufacturing
of products and/or applying more cascade loops to increase the length of HWP car-
bon storage. In general, the use of wood for energy, in most cases, produces a lower
DF compared to its material uses, while new wood-based products, such as chemi-
cals, textiles and mixed-material composites, exhibit the highest potential
(Soimakallio et al. 2016; Leskinen et al. 2018). Therefore, wood-material flows,
including secondary flows, such as sidestreams and waste wood, should primarily
be used for those high DF applications before being used as combustion for energy.
In wood construction, the substitution potential is, on average, estimated to be
slightly lower, but the HWP sink is considerably higher compared to many of the
new wood-based products. Thus, the assumed carbon-storage time of up to 70 years
compensates for the smaller substitution impact.
A big question mark in this context concerns the extent to which the production
structure could change. The market structure is simultaneously influenced by con-
sumer demand, the competitive advantage of a firm, industry, region or country to
produce a certain product, and the strategies of the industries. For example, it is
unrealistic to assume that the production of short life-span products with no substi-
tution impacts, such as hygiene papers, would come to a halt. Even if this was the
case in one region, the production would likely shift elsewhere, at least in part (see
Box 7.1). Nonetheless, besides reducing the direct energy use of industrial side-
streams, one clear opportunity relates to the declining demand for communication
papers, and the resulting increased availability of pulpwood for alternative uses,
such as packaging (Hurmekoski et al. 2018).
It is necessary to remember that, ultimately, the primary focus of any climate-
change mitigation strategy ought to be on minimising overall emissions to the atmo-
sphere rather than, for example, maximising the substitution impacts of wood use,
whether this means favouring certain products or, for example, changing forest
management practices for improved ecosystem resilience. Due to established indus-
tries being required to find several complementary emissions-reduction pathways to
meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement, the increased use of wood becomes all
the more relevant for climate-change mitigation, especially the more pessimistic the
overall climate policy outlook. However, as lignocellulosic resources will, in any
case, be insufficient for replacing the entire fossil-based economy, the uses of wood
will need to be prioritised in those markets where significant emissions reductions
seem the most difficult to obtain, or where co-benefits on, for example, the water
footprint could be gained, markets allowing.
Estimating substitution impacts and HWP carbon storage is a technically complex

task and, in practical terms, limited by data availability. Unlike for HWP sinks, there
is no IPCC guidance, or other established guidance, for deriving market- level sub-
stitution estimates, although the LCA used to derive product-specific DFs is based
on international standards. The complexity of the markets and carbon flows causes
variation in the scope of assumptions, whilst the abstract nature of substitution and
the lack of precise data cause significant uncertainty in substitution estimates. Even
though the few available estimates indicate a reasonably similar scale, this may be
the result of using, at least partly, the same few data sources and similar market
assumptions.
The GHG data produced by LCA is a key data source for assessing the DFs of
wood-based products. However, the current practise of LCA does not include GHG
emissions caused by LULUCF. In order to assess the total climate impacts of wood
utilisation, including changes in the carbon stocks in forests, and their products and
substitution effects, the impacts of LULUCF on GHG emissions caused by alterna-
tive non-wood products should also be taken into account. For example, the produc-
tion of cotton causes land-use change, releasing CO2 emissions from soils.
DF data on the use and end-of-life stages of products remains scarce. In particu-
lar, the impact of recycling on the overall DFs is unclear for many products. More
research is needed to avoid false conclusions.
Product substitution is an abstract and essentially unobservable phenomenon.
Thus, a satisfactory understanding of substitution impacts cannot be gained by look-
ing at carbon pools and flows alone––market dynamics also require consideration.
While substitution can, to some extent, be traced using market shares (e.g. Batten
and Johansson 1987), our overall understanding of the occurrence and nature of
substitution in the wood-based products markets remains incomplete, if not fragile.
For example, consider the case of deriving an end-use-weighted DF for dissolving
pulp (Sect. 7.1.2). Measuring the market share may not fully capture the substitution
dynamics in the market. If the production of cotton remains stable, having reached
a limit (e.g. due to no more land or water being available for its production), and at
the same time man-made cellulosic fibre (MMCF) consumption increases, is it then
a logical interpretation that MMCFs substitute for cotton? If the production of
MMCFs were not increased to meet the increased demand for textile fibres, perhaps
the remainder of the demand would have been met by synthetic fibres. Thus, it is not
clear whether we should assume that MMCFs will substitute for synthetic fibres or
cotton. More importantly, we cannot be sure if we can assume substitution to have
occurred in the first place. That is, in the absence of perfect substitutes, the overall
demand for textile fibres may have remained lower due to the markets adjusting to
increased prices as a consequence of constrained supply.
Even if we accept the premise of substitution between wood-based and alterna-

tive textile fibres, can we be certain that this prevents the extra fossil feedstocks
from being used? Due to carbon leakage (Box 7.1), an additional unit of wood
products consumed does not necessarily lead to a unit reduction in other consump-
tion, as the consumption of the alternative product may shift elsewhere in the econ-
omy (e.g. Sathre and O’Connor 2010), or the use of fossil feedstocks may be delayed
for a certain period (Harmon 2019). Thus, the (non-)permanence of avoided emis-
sions can end up being an issue equally as complex as the (non-)permanence of
forest carbon sinks.
Box 7.1. Carbon Leakage

The term ‘carbon leakage’ refers to a shift in emissions-intensive production
from one region to another, for example, if a carbon tax is operationalised in
one region only. This issue is not specific to any sector, but is a generic result
of supply shifting to unregulated areas to meet the global demand, when the
supply is restricted either directly or through pricing. Besides shifting the
production capacity, leakage can also occur in the supply side, such as in for-
estry, for example, when forest land is set aside (e.g. for enhancing carbon
sinks through a compensation scheme for forest owners or to conserve forests
through the UN’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest
Degradation [REDD+]) schemes. In this case, the reduced supply of wood in
one region may result in an increased level of harvesting elsewhere, thus
watering down the initial aim. According to Pan et al. (2020), carbon leakage
is estimated to be higher in the forest sector than in energy-intensive industries.
In the forest sector, the term has mostly been used in the context of limiting
the level of wood harvesting and the resulting international carbon leakage.
Kallio and Solberg (2018) suggested that a change in harvest level in one
country may lead to up to a 60–100% opposite change in the rest of the world.
In addition to international leakage in a sector, there may also be intersectoral
or intertemporal carbon leakage. This relates to the assumptions about substi-
tution, in that an additional unit of wood products consumed does not neces-
sarily lead to a unit reduction in other consumption, as the consumption of the
alternative product may shift from one use to another (Sathre and O’Connor
2010). That is, if wood replaces concrete in the construction sector, the
avoided use of fossil feedstocks may end up being used in another sector.
Similarly, substitution may delay the use of fossil feedstocks for a certain
period, but not necessarily avoid its use altogether (Harmon 2019). In other
words, the substitution impact would be slowing down the fossil depletion
rate, but not necessarily preventing it from happening.
Unless a policy has perfect coverage over the entire world economy, it may
be impossible to avoid leakages. Although the exact rate of leakage is some-
what uncertain, it should nevertheless be considered when designing climate
policies, not to encourage measures that lead to suboptimal or controversial
impacts. This calls for long-term and integrated land-use planning (Pan
et al. 2020).
A few practical implications arise from the identified uncertainties. There is a need
to balance between expected developments in the forest-products markets and the
availability of data for the determination of DFs. While there can be alternative
ways for addressing the structural changes in forest-sector modelling to gain market
scenarios, we simply do not have data for accurately determining the DF for novel
wood-based products, or their counterparts that are not yet in production. We can,
however, make assumptions about the factors that will influence the outcome, and
can rely on sensitivity analysis to test their impact. Indeed, in future endeavours to
estimate the scale of the overall substitution impacts, a range of estimates based on
minimum and maximum assumptions should be considered, rather than a single
value, together with extensive sensitivity analysis on the critical uncertainties.
Focusing on marginal substitution, and using optimisation techniques to define opti-
mal substitution cases, allows for the formulation of tangible and policy- relevant
strategies (Smyth et al. 2017).
Importantly, there is a need for integrated modelling frameworks to capture the
various market dynamics, such as rebound effects. For example, Antikainen et al.
(2017) found that using textiles for longer before disposal, or substituting synthetic
fibres for MMCFs, increases the overall material consumption of the economy, as
this drives the consumption from textiles towards other commodities, which are
often more material-intensive than textiles, and because synthetic fibres are pro-
duced from the sidestreams of the oil industry. Such impacts cannot be captured by
focusing on the forest- product markets alone, but require a broader understanding
of the end-use markets and value chains, as well as consumer behaviour.
A further layer of complexity is added when the fossil carbon flows are com-
pared against the biogenic carbon flows. While GHG molecules and their impact on
the climate obviously cannot be told apart based on their origin, this distinction is
necessary when defining long-term mitigation strategies. In the next chapter of this
book, we combine the insights of Chaps. 6 and 7, highlighting the possible trade-
offs, and searching for no-regret mitigation strategies in light of these carbon flows.
7.5 Key Messages
• HWPs can influence the climate through two separate mechanisms. Firstly, when
wood is harvested from a forest, the carbon contained in the wood is stored in
wood-based products for months to decades. If the amount of wood products
entering the market exceeds the amount of wood products being discarded annu-
ally, this can lead to a HWP sink impact. Secondly, as wood-based products have,
on average, a lower fossil carbon footprint than alternative products, using wood
in construction, for example, can avoid larger fossil emissions by reducing the
production of cement and steel. This is a substitution impact. The international
GHG reporting conventions and the related IPCC guidance only cover the HWP
sink impact, but not the substitution impacts.
• Substitution impacts are measured by tracking market developments (material

flows, end uses, consumer demands) and the emissions profiles of wood-based
products versus products they substitute for. So far, there is no established
framework for upscaling the substitution impacts to the market level. While there
are rough estimates of substitution impacts, it is unclear what percentage of cur-
rent or future wood-based products may ultimately substitute for fossil feed-
stocks. Even some of the principles remain uncertain, such as the extent to which
substitution can be assumed to occur in individual cases. Despite these uncer-
tainties, HWPs can, at least in principle, further contribute to climate-change
mitigation by changing the production structure of forest industries by, for exam-
ple, shifting from communication-paper manufacturing to textile manufacturing,
or by shifting the use of by-products from energy to material uses.
• Importantly, the substitution and HWP sink impacts do not represent the climate-
change mitigation impact of wood use, as such. Instead, they are important
pieces of the broader puzzle of GHG flows related to the forest sector, and need
to be considered in decision-making accordingly. This is because substitution
impacts only depict changes in fossil emissions, while changes in biogenic emis-
sions are accounted for in the LULUCF sector, indicating a possible short-term
trade-off between substitution impacts and HWP sink impacts on one hand, and
forest carbon sinks on the other. These fossil and biogenic carbon flows need to
be tracked across time and across markets in alternative scenarios compared to a
common reference in order to yield relevant policy implications.
Acknowledgements Elias Hurmekoski wishes to acknowledge financial support from the

References
Achachlouei MA, Moberg Å (2015) Life cycle assessment of a magazine, part II: a comparison of
print and tablet editions. J Ind Ecol 19:590–606
Alarotu M, Pajula T, Hakala J, Harlin A (2020) Metsäteollisuuden tuotteiden ilmastovaikutukset
(Climate impacts of forest industry products). VTT-CR-00682-20
Batten DF, Johansson B (1987) Substitution and technological change. In: The global forest sector:
an analytical perspective. Wiley, New York, pp 278–305
Braun M, Fritz D, Weiss P, Braschel N, Büchsenmeister R, Freudenschuß A, Gschwantner T, Jandl
R, Ledermann T, Neumann M (2016) A holistic assessment of greenhouse gas dynamics from
forests to the effects of wood products use in Austria. Carbon Manag 7:271–283
Brunet-Navarro P, Jochheim H, Cardellini G, Richter K, Muys B (2021) Climate mitigation by
energy and material substitution of wood products has an expiry date. J Clean Prod 127026
EN: 15804:2012 (2012) Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations.
Core rules for the product category of construction products, British Standards Institute, London
European Commission (2015) Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy.
European Commission, Communication COM (2015) 614/2
Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan R (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assess-
ment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:80–85. https://doi.org/10.1065/
lca2006.02.002
Finnish Government (2019) Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 10

December 2019. Inclusive and competent Finland—a socially, economically and ecologically
sustainable society. Publications of the Finnish Government 2019:33, Helsinki
Harmon ME (2019) Have product substitution carbon benefits been overestimated? A sensitivity
analysis of key assumptions. Environ Res Lett 14:65008
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Mehtätalo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analyses
for the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply, carbon
balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. For Policy Econ 80:80–98
Holmgren P (2019) Contribution of the Swedish forestry sector to global climate efforts. Swedish
Forest Industries Federation
Holmgren P (2020) Climate effects of the forest based sector in the European Union. Confederation
of European Paper Industry
Howard C, Dymond CC, Griess VC, Tolkien-Spurr D, van Kooten GC (2021) Wood product car-
bon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions. Carbon Balance Manag 16:1–11
Diversification of the forest-based sector: role of new products. Can J For Res 48:1417–1432.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116
Hurmekoski E, Myllyviita T, Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Kilpeläinen A, Pukkala T, Mattila T, Hetemäki
L, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2020) Impact of structural changes in wood-using industries on net
carbon emissions in Finland. J Ind Ecol 24:899–912
Iordan CM, Hu X, Arvesen A, Kauppi P, Cherubini F (2018) Contribution of forest wood products
to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden
and Finland. Carbon Balance Manag 13:12
IPCC (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warm-
ing of 1.5°C above pre—industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission path-
ways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JRC (2010) ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. European
Union, Luxembourg
Kallio AMI, Solberg B (2018) Leakage of forest harvest changes in a small open economy: case
Norway. Scand J For Res 33:502–510
Kayo C, Dente SMR, Aoki-Suzuki C, Tanaka D, Murakami S, Hashimoto S (2018) Environmental
impact assessment of wood use in Japan through 2050 using material flow analysis and life
cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 23:635–648
Keith H, Lindenmayer D, Macintosh A, Mackey B (2015) Under what circumstances do wood
products from native forests benefit climate change mitigation? PLoS One 10:e0139640
Knauf M (2015) A multi-tiered approach for assessing the forestry and wood products industries’
impact on the carbon balance. Carbon Balance Manag 10:4
Köhl M, Ehrhart H-P, Knauf M, Neupane PR (2020) A viable indicator approach for assessing sus-
tainable forest management in terms of carbon emissions and removals. Ecol Indic 111:106057
Kruus K, Hakala T (2017) The making of bioeconomy transformation. VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, Gonzalez-Garcia S, Gustavsson L, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä
J, Smyth C, Stern T, Verkerk H (2018) Substitution effects of wood-based products in cli-
mate change mitigation. From science to policy, no. 7. European Forest Institute. https://doi.
org/10.36333/fs07
Licht S, Wu H, Hettige C, Wang B, Asercion J, Lau J, Stuart J (2012) STEP cement: solar thermal
electrochemical production of CaO without CO2 emission. Chem Commun 48:6019–6021
Pan W, Kim M-K, Ning Z, Yang H (2020) Carbon leakage in energy/forest sectors and climate
policy implications using meta-analysis. For Policy Econ 115:102161
PAS 2050:2011 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of goods and services. British Standards Institute, London
Poljatschenko VAM, Valsta LT (2021) Carbon emissions displacement effect of Finnish mechani-
cal wood products by dominant tree species in a set of wood use scenarios. Silva Fenn 55.
https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10391
Repo A, Känkänen R, Tuovinen J, Antikainen R, Tuomi M, Vanhala P, Liski J (2012) Forest bio-
energy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal. GCB Bioenergy
4:202–212
Roe S, Streck C, Obersteiner M, Frank S, Griscom B, Drouet L, Fricko O, Gusti M, Harris N,
Hasegawa (2019) Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5° C world. Nat Clim Chang:1–12
Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Vial E, Levet A-L (2016) ClimWood2030-Climate benefits
of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030.
Final report. Thünen report
Rüter S, Matthews RW, Lundblad M, Sato A, Hassan RA (2019) Chapter 12: harvested wood
products. In: 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp 12.1–12.49
Sathre R, O’Connor J (2010) Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood prod-
uct substitution. Environ Sci Pol 13:104–114
Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kilpeläinen A, Mattila T, Myllyviita T, Asikainen A, Peltola
H (2019) Effect of increased wood harvesting and utilization on required greenhouse gas dis-
placement factors of wood-based products and fuels. J Environ Manag 247:580–587
Smyth C, Rampley G, Lemprière TC, Schwab O, Kurz WA (2017) Estimating product and
energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. GCB Bioenergy
9:1071–1084
Soimakallio S, Saikku L, Valsta L, Pingoud K (2016) Climate change mitigation challenge for
wood utilization the case of Finland. Environ Sci Technol 50:5127–5134
Suter F, Steubing B, Hellweg S (2017) Life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value ch
Ain: the case of Switzerland. J Ind Ecol 21:874–886
Taylor R, Nattrass L, Alberts G, Robson P, Chudziak C, Bauen A, Libelli IM, Lotti G, Prussi M,
Nistri R. (2015) From the sugar platform to biofuels and biochemicals. Final report for the
European Commission Directorate-General Energy N (ENER/C2/423–2012/SI2.673791)
UNFCCC (2018) Report of the conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the
Paris agreement on the third part of its first session, held in Katowice from 2 to 15 December
2018. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E (2010) National and global greenhouse gas
dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment.
Environ Sci Pol 13:72–85
Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2012) Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of
emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy 4:761–772
Chapter 8
Climate-Change Mitigation
in the Forest-Based Sector: A Holistic View
Elias Hurmekoski, Antti Kilpeläinen, and Jyri Seppälä
Abstract Forests and wood use can contribute to climate-change mitigation by

enhancing carbon sinks through afforestation, reforestation and improved forest
management, by maintaining carbon stocks through natural or anthropogenic dis-
turbance prevention, by increasing offsite carbon stocks, and through material and
energy substitution by changing the industry production structure and enhancing
resource efficiency. As forests grow fairly slowly in Europe, increasing the wood
harvesting intensity decreases the carbon stocks in aboveground biomass, at least in
the short to medium term (0–50 years) compared to a baseline harvest regime. The
key issue is the time frame in which the decreased carbon stock in forests can be
compensated for by improved forest growth resulting from improved forest man-
agement and the benefits related to wood utilisation. Thus, there is a need to address
potential trade-offs between the short- to medium-term and the long-term (50+
years) net emissions. An optimal strategy needs to be tailored based also on regional
specificities related to, for example, local climatic and site conditions, the state of
the forests, the institutional setting and the industry structures. This chapter presents
a way to assess the effectiveness of forest-sector climate-change mitigation strate-
gies across different contexts and time horizons, combining the climate impacts of
forests and the wood utilisation of the technosphere. We identify potential ‘no-
regret’ mitigation pathways with minimum trade-offs, and conclude with the
research and policy implications.
Keywords Carbon sink · Climate-change mitigation · Counterfactual sceanrio ·

Forest sector · Net greenhouse gas emissions · Substitution impacts · Time
dynamics
E. Hurmekoski (*)
A. Kilpeläinen
J. Seppälä

8.1 Introduction
This chapter contains a synthesis of the insights in Chap. 6, dealing with forests, and
Chap. 7, focusing on the technosphere. In this chapter, we adhere to the principle of
‘what the atmosphere sees’ regarding climate change. What we mean by this refers
to two aspects. Firstly, it is necessary to pay equal attention to all factors affecting
the climate impacts of the forest sector; that is, to simultaneously analyse a biologi-
cal ecosystem (forests), a technological system (industries) and a socioeconomic
system (markets). This is imperative for the designing and monitoring of climate-
change mitigation measures that ensure a net reduction in the atmospheric green-
house gas (GHG) concentrations in a desired time period.
Secondly, the principle of ‘what the atmosphere sees’ can also refer to the abso-
lute GHG emissions and sinks, in contrast to GHG emissions and sinks based on an
accounting framework used for monitoring and policy purposes. The accounting of
GHG emissions and sinks reported under national GHG inventories facilitates
tracking of the impacts of mitigation measures, for example, by comparing annually
reported values against a baseline. In the EU climate policy framework, forests and
forest bioenergy are regulated under the land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF) sector, for example. Changes in carbon stocks in existing forests are
compared with forest reference levels––that is, the level of carbon sink tied to the
forest management regime of a historical reference period. Although the current
LULUCF regulation (EU 2018) contains several flexibilities, the principle is that, if
the sinks in managed forests decline below the reference level, in the accounting
framework, these emissions need to be reduced elsewhere in the LULUCF sector, or
in other sectors outside the EU emissions trading scheme. Thus, the LULUCF regu-
lation aims to make the forest and land- use sector comparable to all other economic
sectors in the EU climate policy, thereby emphasising the importance of short-term
mitigation outcomes over the possible long-term benefits of wood use. Such
accounting principles are a result of international policy processes that emphasise
the short and medium term in climate-change mitigation. In this chapter, we refer to
comparisons against a reference scenario (synonymous with a counterfactual sce-
nario) to facilitate the drawing of policy implications based on the effectiveness of
selected mitigation measures, but this should not be confused with internationally
negotiated GHG accounting principles.
The mitigation potential of the forest-based sector can be realised through sev-
eral alternative measures (e.g. Nabuurs et al. 2017a, b; St-Laurent et al. 2018;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2019), as summarised in
Table 8.1. There is, however, an important caveat––some of the forest-based climate-
change mitigation strategies are more effective on short-term climate impacts,
whereas others are better for long-term impacts, and also some of the measures may
be better suited for one particular regional context than another. Thus, there can be
trade-offs between the measures. Moreover, in real life, forests are used for multiple
purposes simultaneously, leading to mixed climate-change mitigation strategies that
consider the balancing of different societal objectives and needs for forests.
8 Climate-Change Mitigation in the Forest-Based Sector: A Holistic View 153
Table 8.1 Selected climate-change mitigation measures related to forests and wood utilisation
Type and timing of
Category impact Example and description
1A Increase Enhance sink: Afforestation and reforestation enhance forest carbon
forest area delayed impact sinks
1B Maintain Reduce source: Avoid land-use change: reducing deforestation
forest area immediate impact prevents biogenic emissions from occurring
2A Increase Enhance sink: Improve forest management: increasing the growth
site- level carbon delayed impact rate of forests and forest carbon sinks by, for example,
density using improved regeneration materials (seeds and
seedlings) or forest fertilisation
2B Maintain Reduce source: Avoid forest degradation: for example, protect
site- level carbon immediate impact old-growth forests to maintain forest carbon stocks and
density promote forest conservation (and biodiversity)
3A Increase Enhance sink: Apply principles of sustainable forest management:
landscape-level delayed impact enhancing forest carbon sequestration (growth) and
carbon stocks maintaining higher stocking in thinning (possibly also
longer rotations), while provisioning other ecosystem
services
3B Maintain Reduce source: Increase forest resilience to natural disturbances:
landscape-level immediate impact adaptation of forests and forest management to climate
carbon stocks change, for example, by increasing the species
diversity in forest stands, and forest resilience to
different abiotic and biotic damage by various means
(see Chap. 3)
4A Increase Enhance sink: Increase the share of long-lived wood products:
offsite carbon in immediate impact increasing the share of, for example, construction
wood products (if meeting also 1B, products in the overall wood-industry product portfolio
2B and 3B) to increase carbon storage outside the atmosphere,
irrespective of the amount of wood harvested
4B Increase Reduce source: Increase the share of low-emission wood products:
material and immediate impact increasing the share of, for example, textiles in the
energy (if meeting also 1B, overall wood-industry product portfolio to avoid fossil
substitution 2B and 3B) emissions, irrespective of the amount of wood
harvested; increasing material efficiency and clean,
non-burning energy in wood-based product chains to
avoid fossil emissions through the reallocation of
sidestreams
Modified after Nabuurs et al. (2007, Fig. 9.4). Note that the impacts of any strategy need to be
assessed on a case-by-case basis, and in a comprehensive framework, in order to avoid oversimpli-
fied conclusions
As a rule, in terms of climate-change mitigation, increasing wood harvesting

intensity decreases carbon stocks in forests compared to the baseline harvest, at
least in the short to medium term (see Sect. 8.3). Thus, the effectiveness of a mitiga-
tion strategy depends on the net emissions (expressed as CO2 equivalents) over
time––the reduction in the carbon sink caused by harvesting, and the time by which
the reduction is compensated for by the recovered forest carbon stock, the avoided
fossil emissions and the carbon stored in products. How do we analyse the effective-
ness of these strategies across different contexts?
8.2 Estimating the Impacts of Mitigation Strategies
Creating an understanding of the overall climate impact of the forest-based sector

requires simultaneous consideration of carbon stock changes in standing trees, soil
and harvested-wood products (HWPs), as well as the avoided fossil emissions from
the substitution impacts of wood use. The forest carbon sink equalled −373.5
MtCO2eq/year and the HWP sink equalled −40.6 MtCO2eq/year in 2017 (European
Economic Area [EEA] 2019). There are very few systematic estimates for substitu-
tion impacts, but according to Holmgren (2020), the material and energy substitu-
tion impact of wood use in Europe in 2018 accounted for −410 MtCO2eq/year. For
comparison, the total European GHG emissions (without the LULUCF sector) were
4333 MtCO2eq/year in 2017 (EEA 2019). Note that in GHG inventories, negative
values stand for removals from the atmosphere and positive values stand for emis-
sions to the atmosphere. Note also that the estimate of overall substitution impacts
refers to the amount of avoided fossil emissions compared to a hypothetical situa-
tion in which no wood would be used, and cannot therefore be directly compared to
the absolute forest and HWP sink impacts that portray the changes in carbon stocks
from one year to the next. Thus, adding the above individual impacts together (for-
est carbon sink, HWP sink, substitution) would provide no direct or necessarily
meaningful interpretation without a comparison to a common reference.
In the context of climate-change mitigation, it is therefore essential to differenti-
ate between the current emissions balance and the changes in the emissions balance
as a result of mitigation strategies. This requires quantifying at least two scenarios,
one with the current portfolio of mitigation actions and one with the new portfolio
of mitigation actions. The difference between these two scenarios reveals the cli-
mate impacts of a new mitigation strategy relative to the current one. For this rea-
son, the most important step in analysing the climate impacts of wood use is to
compare the mitigation outcomes against a counterfactual scenario through time.
Essentially, the counterfactual scenario determines how GHG emissions caused by
wood utilisation would have developed over time, if the forest management and
wood-use regime had not been subject to the selected set of climate-change mitiga-
tion strategies. For example, one could examine the difference in net GHG emis-
sions over a 50-year period, if wood harvesting in the EU was increased by 15%
compared to maintaining the current harvest level. Varying approaches have been
used for this type of analysis. A useful starting point can be to compare alternative
scenarios to a counterfactual scenario, determined as a reference or business-as-
usual scenario, in which the sector would develop according to past trends or
according to the most recent forecasts.
The difference in GHG emissions between baseline Scenario b and alternative
Scenario a in time interval [t0, T] can be calculated according to the following equa-
tion (Seppälä et al. 2019):
T (TCb ( t ) − TCa ( t ) + SCb ( t ) − SCa ( t ) + PCb ( t ) − PCa ( t )

∆NGHGEb − a = ∫
t0 − ( SI b ( t ) − SI a ( t ) ) dt ,
(8.1)
where TC is the tree carbon stock change, SC is the soil carbon stock change,
PC is the product carbon stock change, SI represents the substitution impacts,
and t is the year. If the result of Eq. (8.1) is negative, the mitigation potential of
a strategy adopted in Scenario a is better than the mitigation potential of
Scenario b in time interval [t0,T] (e.g. in the next 30 years). Thus, Eq. (8.1)
allows us to compare the different outcomes of selected strategies on the cumu-
lative GHG emissions over a certain time span. However, assessing the most
appropriate time interval for interpreting the climate benefits of different wood-
utilisation strategies is not straightforward (see Sect. 8.3). In practice, it is use-
ful to assess the climate impacts of strategies both over the short and medium
term (0–50 years) and in the long term (50+ years).
Peer-reviewed landscape-level studies that have determined the net climate
impacts of mitigation scenarios against a counterfactual scenario for different har-
vesting intensities indicate a clear trade-off between short-term and long-term miti-
gation outcomes (Werner et al. 2010; Lundmark et al. 2014; Smyth et al. 2014;
Matsumoto et al. 2016; Soimakallio et al. 2016; Gustavsson et al. 2017; Heinonen
et al. 2017; Chen et al. 2018; Pingoud et al. 2018; Valade et al. 2018; Seppälä et al.
2019; Kalliokoski et al. 2020; Jonsson et al. 2021). The climate impacts are affected
by the initial age structures of the studied landscapes in interaction with plausible
management of the stands over time. For example, the positive effects of increased
forest carbon sequestration through higher stocking of growing stock has been
found to be greater for the initially young and middle-aged forest landscape, while
the total climate impacts remain more sensitive to the substitution impact or timber-
use efficiency than to the initial stocking (Baul et al. 2020).
Applying Eq. (8.1) may be difficult in practice, when considering the uncertain-
ties relating to the long-term projections for carbon sinks and substitution impacts,
such as the risk of sink reversals due to forest disturbances or changing product
portfolios. Besides questions on the accuracy, the utility of the equation in terms of
the managerial and policy implications depends on the scope of the factors consid-
ered when calculating the outcomes of the scenarios. For example, in the case where
there is an anticipated increase in natural disturbances, one could recommend pre-
mature final felling to avoid even higher net emissions, whereas a more holistic
strategy would additionally consider adaptation measures, such as increasing the
tree species diversity of forest stands. Importantly, it is likely that there are at least
some indirect, and not easily quantifiable, impacts missing from the calculation,
such as carbon leakage, forest management incentives created by forest-owner rev-
enues, and other socioeconomic cascade impacts, which calls for broader assess-
ment and interpretation (e.g. Favero et al. 2020). Nonetheless, without systematic
modelling tools and explicit comparisons between scenarios (such as in Eq. (8.1)),
the results are not necessarily going to be transparent, and the meaning of the time
span may be left without interpretation, or the interpretation may be overly

simplistic.
8.3 Time Dynamics of Fossil and Biogenic Emissions
Regarding the comparisons between mitigation and counterfactual scenarios, it is

important to understand that the impacts of mitigation strategies in given circum-
stances will change according to the selected time interval, among other scope con-
siderations (see, e.g., Pingoud et al. 2012). In many studies, however, an interpretation
of the results with regard to different time intervals is largely missing.
There are fundamental differences between biogenic and fossil carbon flows,
even though the GHG compounds and their impact on the climate are identical. This
is because the biogenic carbon in forests can be considered to be in balance between
the biosphere and the atmosphere, if the original growth circumstances of the for-
ests continue and the harvesting areas remain as forests. By contrast, fossil emis-
sions disturb the carbon balance by adding carbon from geological stores to the
atmosphere. Both carbons are removed from the atmosphere through photosynthe-
sis and emitted to the atmosphere through respiration, decay and fires, but are also
stored in plants, in the organic matter in soils and in HWPs.
According to the concept of carbon neutrality, the carbon emissions and sinks
from a (managed) forest ecosystem are in balance over the long term (e.g. Nabuurs
et al. 2017a, b). Therefore, in the long term, the use of biomass feedstock does not
result in permanent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when sustainably
sourced. However, this definition of carbon neutrality should not be confused with
what is agreed in the international GHG inventory reporting conventions. Despite
the actual unit emissions from biomass burning exceeding those of fossil fuels
(Zanchi et al. 2012), biomass burning is reported as zero emissions in the energy
sector in order to avoid double counting between the energy sector and the LULUCF
sector. This is because the carbon impact is already fully counted in the LULUCF
sector as increased net emissions due to a reduction in carbon stocks in forest eco-
systems as a result of harvesting wood. Thus, the actual impact of wood use on the
net emissions of the economy needs to be assessed case by case, by tracking both
the ecosystem and technosystem GHG flows through time. For example, if the aver-
age substitution impacts were increased to the extent that they almost offset a tem-
porary decline in the carbon sink (compared to baseline), an increase in harvesting
level could be interpreted as resulting in net neutral impacts in the short run, but in
net mitigation benefits in the long run because permanent fossil emissions and sink
saturation would have been avoided.
Forest biomass harvesting leads to a temporary decline in the forest carbon stock.
The time lag for achieving net mitigation benefits through biomass utilisation can be
described using two concepts––carbon debt and carbon parity (Mitchell et al.
2012). The carbon debt repayment period refers to the period between biomass
harvesting and the point at which the overall GHG emissions balance of the harvest
scenario (including potential avoided fossil emissions through wood utilisation and
carbon stock in wood products) offsets the loss of carbon stored in the biomass at
the time of harvesting. The concept of carbon parity also takes into account the
accumulated ecosystem carbon that could have occurred had the harvest not taken
place. This leads to the comparison of a scenario with the defined activities against
a scenario without those activities––the counterfactual scenario. The repayment
period depends on, for example, the latitude (boreal, temperate or tropical), biomass
feedstock source (stemwood or residue), spatial scale (forest stand or landscape),
type of fossil fuel replaced (coal, oil or gas) and energy usage (heating or power
generation) (Geng et al. 2017), as well as the initial state of the forest, the forest
growth rate and the management practices (Valade et al. 2018).
Reviews focused on wood-based bioenergy have determined that the range of
parity times proposed in the literature exceeds two centuries (Lamers and Junginger
2013; Bentsen 2017). Bentsen (2017) found that the carbon debt and parity times
vary mostly due to the assumptions used, and that methodological rather than eco-
system- and management-related assumptions determine the findings. According to
Lamers and Junginger (2013), parity times are primarily influenced by the choice
and formulation of the reference scenario and the assumptions relating to fossil-
fuel-displacement efficiency. Generally, in the EU forest context, harvesting trees
for bioenergy has been estimated to have a parity time exceeding a century for final
fellings, less than a century for thinnings, and from a few years to a few decades for
forest residues (Nabuurs et al. 2017a, b; Pingoud et al. 2018). In some cases, such
as when using forest residues, dead or damaged wood from natural disturbance
sites, or new plantations on highly productive or marginal land, the net carbon ben-
efits can be almost immediate (Lamers and Junginger 2013). The parity times have
apparently been studied mostly in relation to bioenergy exclusively, so that evidence
on the range of parity times that consider all major GHG flows (i.e. including mate-
rial substitution impacts and HWP carbon sinks) remains limited. In one such
assessment for Canada, the parity time ranged from 43 years to more than a century
(Chen et al. 2018), depending on counterfactual assumptions. However, as noted by
Bentsen (2017), the lack of consensus on carbon debt and parity times among
researchers implies that the concept remains inadequate in itself for informing and
guiding concrete policy development, with too many of the outcomes and conclu-
sions relying on methodology and assumptions. Nonetheless, in the absence of bet-
ter metrics, these concepts are helpful in understanding––at least conceptually––the
temporal delay in climate benefits relating to an expanding bioeconomy.
Besides the temporal dynamics, it is necessary to note that the spatial scope of
the analysis can also influence the conclusions. The broader the spatial context, the
more policy-relevant the conclusions become. That is, compared to an analysis at
the single forest stand level, an analysis at the landscape level ought to consider a
more holistic range of contributing factors and interdependencies, even if this means
some detail is lost. Importantly, at the forested landscape level, there is no carbon
debt associated with a baseline harvest due to the mixture of stands in different
developmental stages that average this out. The landscape-level analysis is also
more relevant to analyses at the regional or national levels than the stand-level anal-
ysis. Still, it is clear that more carbon could have accumulated in the ecosystem in
the short to medium term with a lower harvest level, in the absence of natural
disturbances, which is why the carbon parity period needs to be considered at all
levels of analysis (Nabuurs et al. 2017a, b).
It has been estimated that global net emissions ought to be reduced at an annual
rate of around 7% between 2020 and 2030 to be able to limit global warming to 1.5°
(Olhoff and Christensen 2019). This roughly equals the annual net emissions reduc-
tion produced in 2020 by the global lockdown measures, which were on an unprec-
edented scale, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (Olhoff and Christensen
2020). This urgency may be in conflict with the carbon parity times of several
decades associated with increased wood harvesting, although it has to be recognised
that this depends on the counterfactuals that should also account for various market
and ecosystem responses, for example, that current models typically ignore (see,
e.g., Favero et al. 2020). Nonetheless, due to the potentially existing carbon parity
period, it is necessary to track both the biogenic carbon dynamics and the fossil-
based production systems over time in order to enable the designation of realistic
and sustainable mitigation strategies that will not increase atmospheric carbon
within a given time period, and at the same time will allow a rapid run-down of the
fossil-based economy.
Importantly, although science can facilitate an understanding of the implications
of different time scales, this is not sufficient for judging how the short- and long-
term benefits should be appraised against one another, as this requires a value judge-
ment. Such judgements may also get confused in climate policy with the motives of
different stakeholder groups, such as the definition of sustainability (i.e. the level of
human interference with nature) (Camia et al. 2021). The appraisal of short- and
long-term climate-change mitigation measures also depends on the overall mix of
mitigation policies and strategies that exist outside the forest sector through time.
Thus, there is no conclusive view on what scale and in which time frame a tempo-
rary increase in atmospheric carbon can be tolerated in order to yield long-term
benefits. For example, the precautionary principle would suggest that a temperature
overshoot should be avoided, which might lead to the idea that the level of harvest-
ing should be immediately reduced to promote higher forest carbon sink for the
coming decades. However, biological sinks eventually become saturated, and may
be prone to natural disturbances, unless managed and continually harvested to meet
various human demands, so reducing the harvest level would ultimately cause
higher permanent fossil-based emissions (IPCC 2019).
8.4 Viable Strategies for Climate-Change Mitigation

in the Forest Sector
It is widely recognised that the forest-based sector can play an important role in
climate-change mitigation. However, optimising between the short- and long-term
benefits can be tricky (IPCC 2019). An optimal harvesting intensity, from the view-
point of carbon sinks and the amount of wood utilised, will vary. Due to the
complexity of the system, it is not possible to draw a clear line at a level of harvest-
ing that could be characterised as (un)sustainable. Thus, there is clear motivation for
seeking ways to reduce the net GHG emissions of the forest-based sector that would
not lead to adverse consequences either in the short or the long term. In the follow-
ing, we explore some examples of how this could be achieved.
Increasing the net carbon-sink capacity of forests can be achieved by simultane-
ously improving their carbon sequestration while reducing their GHG emissions,
for example, in drained peatland forests. Forest fertilisation is the most effective
measure for increasing the carbon sequestration of forests in boreal locations in the
short term, whereas the use of improved forest regeneration material is an even
more effective measure in the long term, but their combined use is the most effective
(Heinonen et al. 2018). Also, on organic peatland forest soils, avoiding the unneces-
sary maintenance of ditches can result in lower decomposition rates in the peat layer
and its attendant GHG (especially CO2) emissions as a result of raising the
water table.
According to FAOSTAT data, the EU27’s share of world forest area was 3.9% in
2020. At the same time, the EU27’s share of world forest industry exports was
40.8% in 2019 (worth US$100 billion). With such an intensive focus on providing
forest-based products for global markets, the EU has a major opportunity to steer
sustainable production and consumption. Indeed, the substitution impacts and HWP
sinks of wood use could be increased without affecting the forest carbon sink via at
least three channels. Firstly, by increasing the resource efficiency and reducing the
carbon footprint of the current forest products in the entire value-chain relative to
the current situation. Secondly, by changing the portfolio of current products. The
byproducts of wood-using industries could be increasingly used to produce bio-
chemicals, for example, and to satisfy the operational energy demands of pulp mills
and sawmills using alternative (renewable) energy sources or by increasing the
energy efficiency of such mills. Thirdly, by innovating new forest-based products
with higher substitution impacts than the current forest products, and replacing the
latter. Increasing the relative use of wood in the construction, textiles, packaging
and chemicals markets in place of, for example, graphic papers would reduce the
demand for concrete, steel, cotton, plastic and oil derivatives, and would plausibly
result in reduced net emissions, ceteris paribus. However, even if the product port-
folio could be influenced by strategies or policies, the demand for forest-based
products will largely be shaped by consumer preferences, industry competitiveness
and the availability of alternative products to satisfy the same needs. Moreover, the
impacts of changes in the product portfolio ought to be assessed case by case, and
considering the possible indirect impacts. Targeting an increase in the share of long-
lived wood products does not guarantee climate benefits in itself, due to the markets
adjusting to the changing supply and demand, which may lead to unwanted spill-
over impacts. However, it may be possible to use industrial byproducts for construc-
tion, for example, in the form of concrete additives or walls made of nanocellulose,
which might increase both the HWP sink and the substitution impacts compared to
the baseline. Finally, markets will also always demand short-lived products, such as
packaging, hygiene papers and textiles, and it makes sense to produce these with as
low a carbon footprint as possible, which might also mean using wood-based
products.
A key aspect for sustainability lies in addressing the overconsumption of natural
resources, meaning that the demand for virgin raw materials––in particular, single-
use, non-renewable materials––needs to be reduced. Apart from reducing consump-
tion through carbon pricing, for example, this could be achieved by increasing
recycling and reuse (circular economy, cascade use), and by increasing the resource
efficiency of production (e.g. Böttcher et al. 2012). Increasing circularity (i.e. the
cascading use of wood biomass) leads to a longer delay in the release to the atmo-
sphere of the biogenic carbon that is stored in wood-based products, while also
reducing the need to harvest virgin biomass. However, an increase in cascading use
requires the avoidance of harmful substances in wood-based products, as these
could hinder the effective recycling and reuse of these wood materials (European
Commission 2018). Thus, eco-design is a key measure for improving the circularity
and substitution effects of wood products for the future.
Besides mitigation strategies, it is necessary to simultaneously build forest resil-
ience against the changing climate and increased forest disturbances, notably by
moving from monoculture forests to mixed forests (see Chap. 4). This will also
require the adaptation of industry production structures to accommodate the chang-
ing wood supply. According to Dugan et al. (2018), the most effective forest-sector
mitigation measures are likely to be those that retain or enhance the co-benefits and
ecosystem services of forests, such as biodiversity, water quality and the economy,
in addition to achieving climate-change mitigation benefits. Moreover, the mitiga-
tion portfolios need to be regionally differentiated in order to be effective (e.g.
Smyth et al. 2020).
8.5 Key Messages
• The climate impact of the forest-based sector value chain, from forestry to the
disposal of forest-based products, should be analysed from the point of view of
‘what the atmosphere sees’––that is, what is the net GHG impact on the atmo-
sphere of changes in all product stages. The net climate impact of wood use is the
sum of complex interactions between net carbon sinks in forests (tree and soil
carbon sinks: see Chap. 6) and changes in the GHG emissions of the techno-
sphere (HWP carbon sinks, substitution impacts: see Chap. 7), as well as the
biophysical impacts related to forests (albedo, aerosols, black carbon: see Chaps.
3 and 6). The net impacts are influenced by the selected time frame, as well as
future assumptions about markets (market structure, leakage effects), forest
management regimes, the risks of carbon sink reversals (natural disturbances),
etc. All these determinants ought to be assessed against a counterfactual sce-
nario––what would the carbon balance have been if the selected mitigation strat-
egies were not followed?
• It is difficult to simultaneously perceive the impacts of all these factors, not to

mention capture their influence in quantitative modelling in a single peer-
reviewed article, or even as part of a multidisciplinary research consortium.
There is already significant uncertainty around the major components of the net
GHG balance, primarily in the outcomes of models predicting the future forest
carbon sink and the substitution impacts. Together with alternative system
boundaries and widely varying assumptions, this may help us to understand why
opinions based on science can differ. We simply do not know for certain what the
optimal forest rotation or optimal production structure should be, considering all
of the above factors. Because the scope of even state-of-the-art studies is limited,
therefore not allowing the direct policy implications to be understood, attention
is required when interpreting the results of such studies.
• Depending on the counterfactual, there can be a short-term trade-off between
increasing the level of harvesting to increase the substitution impacts and reduc-
ing the level of harvesting to increase the net carbon sink. At the same time, all
GHG emissions to the atmosphere need to be rapidly reduced, regardless of their
origin. Thus, it becomes necessary to explore ‘no-regret’ strategies for boosting
the forest-based bioeconomy. This includes developing new low-carbon innova-
tions in the forest-based bioeconomy, improving the resource efficiency and cir-
cularity of the current bioproducts, and ensuring the vitality and resilience of
forests against natural disturbances. The effectiveness of management measures
also needs to be assessed in their socioeconomic context, paying particular atten-
tion to a rapid and just transition away from fossil-based industries. Thus, it
becomes necessary to simultaneously consider mitigation and adaptation strate-
gies, along with other societal goals.
Acknowledgements Elias Hurmekoksi wishes to acknowledge financial support from the

References
Baul TK, Alam A, Strandman H, Seppälä J, Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A (2020) Radiative forcing of
forest biomass production and use under different thinning regimes and initial age structures of
a Norway spruce forest landscape. Can J For Res 50:523–532
Bentsen NS (2017) Carbon debt and payback time–lost in the forest? Renew Sustain Energy Rev
73:1211–1217
Böttcher H, Freibauer A, Scholz Y, Gitz V, Ciais P, Mund M, Wutzler T, Schulze E-D (2012)
Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change. Carbon Balance Manag 7:5
Camia A, Giuntoli J, Jonsson R, Robert N, Cazzaniga NE, Jasinevičius G, Avitabile V, Grassi G,
Barredo JI, Mubareka S (2021) The use of woody biomass for energy purposes in the EU. EUR
30548 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-76-27867-2.
https://doi.org/10.2760/831621, JRC122719
Chen J, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Yang H, Colombo SJ (2018) Assessing the greenhouse gas effects of
harvested wood products manufactured from managed forests in Canada. For Int J For Res
91:193–205
Dugan AJ, Birdsey R, Mascorro VS, Magnan M, Smyth CE, Olguin M, Kurz WA (2018) A systems
approach to assess climate change mitigation options in landscapes of the United States forest
sector. Carbon Balance Manag 13:13
EEA (2019) Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2017 and inventory report
2019. Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol. European Environmental Agency, EEA/PUBL/2019/051
EU (2018) Regulation 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from and use, and use change and
forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU) No 5
European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection
between economy, society and the environment. COM(2018) 673 final
Favero A, Daigneault A, Sohngen B (2020) Forests: carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or
both? Sci Adv 6:eaay6792
Geng A, Yang H, Chen J, Hong Y (2017) Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood
products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation. For Policy Econ
85:192–200
Gustavsson L, Haus S, Lundblad M, Lundström A, Ortiz CA, Sathre R, Le Truong N, Wikberg P-E
(2017) Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and
fossil fuels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:612–624
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Mehtätalo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analyses
for the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply, carbon
balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. For Policy Econ 80:80–98
ests in a changing climate. Can J For Res 48:1–11
Holmgren P (2020) Climate effects of the forest based sector in the European Union. Confederation
of European Paper Industry
IPCC (2019) Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in
terrestrial ecosystems
Jonsson R, Rinaldi F, Pilli R, Fiorese G, Hurmekoski E, Cazzaniga N, Robert N, Camia A (2021)
Boosting the EU forest-based bioeconomy: market, climate, and employment impacts. Technol
Forecast Soc Change 163:120478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120478
Kalliokoski T, Bäck J, Boy M, Kulmala M, Kuusinen N, Mäkelä A, Minkkinen K, Minunno F,
Paasonen P, Peltoniemi M (2020) Mitigation impact of different harvest scenarios of Finnish
forests that account for albedo, aerosols, and trade-offs of carbon sequestration and avoided
emissions. Front For Glob Chang
Lamers P, Junginger M (2013) The ‘debt’ is in the detail: a synthesis of recent temporal forest
carbon analyses on woody biomass for energy. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining 7:373–385
Lundmark T, Bergh J, Hofer P, Lundström A, Nordin A, Poudel BC, Sathre R, Taverna R, Werner F
(2014) Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests
5:557–578
Matsumoto M, Oka H, Mitsuda Y, Hashimoto S, Kayo C, Tsunetsugu Y, Tonosaki M (2016)
Potential contributions of forestry and wood use to climate change mitigation in Japan. J For
Res 21:211–222
Mitchell SR, Harmon ME, O’Connell KEB (2012) Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in
forest bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy 4:818–827
Nabuurs GJ, Masera O, Andrasko K, Benitez-Ponce P, Boer R, Dutschke M, Elsiddig E, Ford-
Robertson J, Frumhoff P, Karjalainen T (2007) Forestry. Climate change 2007: mitigation. In:
Metz B et al. (eds) Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York
Nabuurs G-J, Arets EJMM, Schelhaas M-J (2017a) European forests show no carbon debt, only a
long parity effect. For Policy Econ 75:120–125
Nabuurs G-J, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M, Ollikainen M

(2017b) By 2050 the mitigation effects of EU forests could nearly double through climate
smart forestry. Forests 8:484
Olhoff A, Christensen JM (2019) Emissions gap report 2019
Olhoff A, Christensen JM (2020) Emissions gap report 2020
Pingoud K, Ekholm T, Savolainen I (2012) Global warming potential factors and warming payback
time as climate indicators of forest biomass use. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17:369–386
Pingoud K, Ekholm T, Sievänen R, Huuskonen S, Hynynen J (2018) Trade-offs between forest car-
bon stocks and harvests in a steady state–a multi-criteria analysis. J Environ Manag 210:96–103
Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kilpeläinen A, Mattila T, Myllyviita T, Asikainen A, Peltola
H (2019) Effect of increased wood harvesting and utilization on required greenhouse gas dis-
placement factors of wood-based products and fuels. J Environ Manag 247:580–587
Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson E, Lemprière TC, Hafer M, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA (2014)
Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector.
Biogeosciences 11:3515
Smyth CE, Xu Z, Lemprière TC, Kurz WA (2020) Climate change mitigation in British
Columbia’s forest sector: GHG reductions, costs, and environmental impacts. Carbon Balance
Manag 15:1–22
Soimakallio S, Saikku L, Valsta L, Pingoud K (2016) Climate change mitigation challenge for
wood utilization the case of Finland. Environ Sci Technol 50:5127–5134
St-Laurent GP, Hagerman S, Kozak R, Hoberg G (2018) Public perceptions about climate change
mitigation in British Columbia’s forest sector. PLoS One 13
Valade A, Luyssaert S, Vallet P, Djomo SN, Van Der Kellen IJ, Bellassen V (2018) Carbon costs
and benefits of France’s biomass energy production targets. Carbon Balance Manag 13:26
Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E (2010) National and global greenhouse gas
dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment.
Environ Sci Pol 13:72–85
Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2012) Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of
emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy 4:761–772
Chapter 9
Climate-Smart Forestry Approach
Lauri Hetemäki and Hans Verkerk
Abstract The climate-smart forestry approach was pioneered in 2015 and has been
generating increasing interest since then. It was developed as a response to the often
very narrow and partial perspective on how forests and the forest-based sector can
contribute to climate-change mitigation. Moreover, its basis is the understanding
that, in order to effectively enhance climate mitigation, efforts should be made to
find synergies and minimise trade-offs with the other ecosystem services forests
provide, such as biodiversity, wood production and recreation. By doing this, greater
support can be generated for climate mitigation measures. The approach acknowl-
edges that there is no one-size-fits-all toolkit to cover all circumstances, but rather
measures have to be tailored according to regional characteristics and institutions.
In summary, 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.
Keywords Climate smart forestry · Climate mitigation · Adaptation to climate

change · Forest sinks · Substitution · Carbon storage
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
L. Hetemäki (*)
H. Verkerk

166 L. Hetemäki and H. Verkerk
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.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 incom-
plete 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, tai-
lored 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 cli-
mate 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
1
It may be noted that the state forests of Finland (Metsähallitus) also introduced climate-smart
forestry into their operations (Vaara et al. 2018). See, also, the European Forest Institute video on
CSF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wGjBKhw6U4
9 Climate-Smart Forestry Approach 167
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 con-
siders 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 remov-
ing 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 incentiv-
ise action according to the three main CSF objectives.
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
Table 9.1 The climate-smart forestry approach potential mitigation effect in the EU (all numbers
are approximations and contain large uncertainties)
Main category of Forest Mitigation effect (Mt
management measure Sub-measure CO2/year)
1. Improve forest management 172
1a. Full-grown coppice 56
1b. Enhanced productivity and 38
improved management
1c. Reduced disturbances, 35
deforestation, drainage
1d. Material substitution using wood 43
products
2. Expand forest area 64
3. Substitute for energy 141
4. Establish forest reserves 64
Total 441
Source: Nabuurs et al. (2017)
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 esti-
mates 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 indi-
cated 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 counter-
factual scenario, the importance of which is highlighted in Chap. 8 of this book.
Projections of forest resources under alternative management and policy assump-
tions––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 regen-
eration 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 exempli-
fied 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 man-
agement 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 biodi-
versity, 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 manage-
ment conditions allow. This favourably adjusts the ratio of productive to unpro-
ductive 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 thin-
nings, 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 strate-
gies 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 manage-
ment; and (3) using wood resources sustainably to substitute for non-renewable,
carbon-intensive materials. Successful implementation of CSF would require poli-
cies 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 impor-
tant ecosystem services.
Verkerk et al. (2020) stressed the need to enhance global afforestation, and avoid
deforestation and degradation, combine mitigation and adaptation measures in for-
est 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 frame-
works and action plans that incorporate the requisite innovations, institutions, infra-
structures 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 eco-
nomic 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.
References
Bowditch E, Santopuoli G, Binder F, del Río M, La Porta N, Kluvankova T, Lesinski J, Motta R,

Pach M, Panzacchi P, Pretzsch H, Temperli C, Tonon G, Smith M, Velikova V, Weatherall A,
Tognetti R (2020) What is climate-smart forestry? A definition from a multinational collab-
orative process focused on mountain regions of Europe. Ecosyst Serv 43:101113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101113
Ellison D, Lundblad M, Petersson H (2014) Reforming the EU approach to LULUCF and the
climate policy framework. Environ Sci Pol 40:1–15
European Commission (2016a) Commission staff working document impact assessment accompa-
nying the document proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
European Commission, Brussels
European Commission (2016b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions. European Commission, Brussels
European Council (2017) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and
forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework and amending regulation no 525/2013 of
the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting green-
house gas emissions. European Council, Brussels
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2013) Climate-smart agriculture: sourcebook. FAO of
the United Nations, Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-107720-7. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3325e.pdf. 10
Dec Jan 2020
Forest Europe (1993) RESOLUTION H1: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management
of Forests in Europe. https://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_helsinki_resolutionH1.pdf.
Accessed 20 Feb 2021
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Forestry. Fourth assessment report. Working
group III: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jandl R, Ledermann T, Kindermann G, Freudenschuss A, Gschwantner T, Weiss P (2018) Strategies
for climate-smart forest management in Austria. Forests 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9100592
Kauppi P, Hanewinkel M, Lundmark L, Nabuurs GJ, Peltola H, Trasobares A, Hetemäki L (2018)
Climate Smart Forestry in Europe. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/
files/publicationbank/2018/Climate_Smart_Forestry_in_Europe.pdf
Nabuurs G, Lindner M, Verkerk H, Gunia K, Deda P, Michalak R, Grassi G (2013) First signs of
carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat Clim Chang 3:792–796. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate1853
Nabuurs GJ, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Lindner M, Nesbit M, Ollikainen M, Savaresi

Science to Policy 2. European Forest Institute https://doi.org/10.36333/fs02
Nabuurs GJ, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M (2017) By 2050 miti-
gation effects of EU forests could nearly double through European climate smart forestry.
Forests 8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ (2017) A
roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355:1269–1271
United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015) Paris Agreement.
UNFCCC, Geneva
Vaara I, Björqvist N, Honkavaara T, Karvonen L, Kiljunen N, Salmi J, Vainio K (2018)
Climate smart forestry: results report for the forestry project for mitigating climate change.
Metsähallitus Forestry Ltd, http://www.e-julkaisu.fi/metsahallitus/Climate_Smart_Forestry/
mobile.html#pid=1. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Verker PJ, Costanza R, Hetemäki L, Kubiszewski I, Leskinen P, Palahí M, Nabuurs G-J, Potočnik
J (2020) Climate-smart forestry: the missing link. For Policy Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2020.102164
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18778-w
Chapter 10
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study:
Czech Republic
Emil Cienciala
Abstract Forestry in the Czech Republic is facing a historically unprecedented,

mostly drought-induced decline in spruce-dominated stands, accompanied by an
extensive bark beetle infestation that has spread across most of the country. As a
result, the share of sanitary felling has dramatically increased, driving the total har-
vest to record-high levels in recent years. As a result, current forest management in
the country practically resembles a crisis management dealing dominantly with
unplanned disturbances. The Czech case shows clearly the essential, non-separable
linkage between forest adaptation and mitigation––a simple recognition that, with-
out adaptation, there is no mitigation. It also demonstrates the importance of tailor-
ing the general climate smart forestry approach to regional circumstances. The
current priorities of Czech forestry must be to halt forest decline, restore the lost
vegetation cover on clearcut soils, and intensify adaptive management in order to
create resilient forest ecosystems than can cope better with changing climate and
extreme climate events.
Keywords Adaptation · Mitigation · Ecosystem carbon balance · Drought ·

Bark beetle
10.1 Czech Forestry
Climate-smart forestry (CSF) (Nabuurs et al. 2017) is a proposal aimed at comple-

menting current national strategies for implementing actions under the Paris
Agreement (Verkerk et al. 2020). Specifically, CSF advocates for measures to better
utilise forestry potential to achieve a stronger climate-change mitigation impact in
European countries. This chapter examines how this mitigation concept is applica-
ble to the specific conditions and circumstances of the Czech Republic.
E. Cienciala (*)
IFER – Institute of Forest Ecosystem Research, Jílové u Prahy and Global Change Research
Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic

174 E. Cienciala
Currently (as of 2020), forestry in the Czech Republic is facing a historically

unprecedented, mostly drought-induced decline in spruce-dominated stands,
accompanied by an extensive bark beetle infestation that has spread across most of
the country. As a result, the share of sanitary felling has dramatically increased,
driving the total harvest to record-high levels in recent years (Fig. 10.1.).
Correspondingly, the share of planned harvest interventions (thinning and final cut-
ting) has declined. Thus, current forest management in the country practically
resembles a crisis management dealing dominantly with unplanned disturbances.
Several factors have contributed to the current forest decline in the country, per-
haps the most important being: (1) The problematic transformation of Czech for-
estry following the collapse of the communist regime in the early 1990s. This
resulted in, among other things, insufficient personnel in the field and the separation
of organisational responsibility and actual forest management. The latter has been
driven by an inflexible tender model, which has seriously delayed urgent sanitary
interventions in infested (or otherwise damaged) forest stands. (2) Inadequate adap-
tive forest management and a lack of recognition of the risks associated with the
changing climate. Despite relevant targets having been formulated in the second
Czech National Forest Programme (Krejzar 2008) and later strategic forestry plans
in the country, the implementation of adaptive forest management has been insuf-
ficient to significantly increase the resiliency of forest stands. There has been insig-
nificant support for adopting more progressive, close-to-nature forest management,
avoiding the clearcut model of even-aged monocultures, utilising natural regenera-
tion, or adequately changing the species and structural composition of forest stands.
(3) Objectively exceptional drought conditions and heatwaves in Central Europe in
35
Planned Sanitary
30
Harvest volume (Mm3/year)
25
20
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Fig. 10.1 Harvest volume for the period 1990–2019 showing planned and sanitary felling inter-
ventions. In 2019, the share of sanitary felling of the total harvest reached 95% at the country level.
Apart from the volume of 32.6 Mm3 extracted from the forest in 2019, there is an additional
~6.3 Mm3 of unprocessed wood volume, mostly of dead standing trees, due to an insufficient har-
vesting capacity. (Czech Statistical Office 2020)
10 Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Czech Republic 175
Table 10.1 Selected key characteristics of Czech Forestry

1990 2018a
Forest ownership 95% public 55% public
Employment in forestry 58,600 13,600
Forest area and forestationb 2.63 Mha, 33% 2.67 Mha, 34%
Share of conifersc 76% 70%
Growing stock per hectared,e 218 m3/ha 270 m3/ha
Harvest level (5-year period) 11.8 Mm3/year (1988–1992) 22.3 Mm3/year (2015–2019)
Share of sanitary fellingf 47% (1988–1992) 70% (2015–2019)
a
Data as of 2018, unless stated otherwise
b
Cadastral forest area, excluding tree vegetation elsewhere
c
Data from forest management plans linked to the cadastral forest area
d
Data from forest management plans (sample-based statistical forest inventory data show signifi-
cantly higher values)
e
All wood-volume data represent merchantable underbark dimensions (minimum diameter 7 cm)
f
The relatively high proportion of salvaging around 1990 reflects a period of a significant air-
pollution impact on forest stands, manifested by both direct damage to tree foliage and soil dis-
turbed by acidification and nutrient degradation. The latter harmful effect on the soils remains
apparent today, with acidified soils impacting root systems and the mycorrhiza, leading to a greater
sensitivity of the (mainly coniferous) trees to drought
recent years (Zalud et al. 2020). (4) An inadequate response from the responsible
state authorities and the Czech Forests state enterprise to the accelerating forest
dieback in the country (Czech News Agency 2020). The Czech Forest Act includes
specific expectations for forest owners or entrusted bodies to fulfil their forestry
obligations––for various reasons, mostly linked to issue 1, above––and these have
not been adequately executed.
In the next section, the CSF principles are outlined, and their alignment with the
urgent need to manage current Czech forest decline, create more resilient ecosys-
tems and improve the outlook for Czech forestry (Table 10.1) is assessed.
10.2 Climate-Smart Forestry in the Czech Context
10.2.1 The CSF Concept
The CSF concept (Nabuurs et al. 2017, 2018; Verkerk et al. 2020) builds on three
pillars: (1) as a climate-mitigation service, by enhancing carbon storage in forests
and wood products, in conjunction with other ecosystem services; (2) through adap-
tive forest management to increase resilience and improve the health of forest
stands; and (3) in the substitution of non-renewable carbon-intensive materials, by
using sustainably produced wood resources. The CSF concept represents a more
mature strategy than the early, overly carbon-accounting-focused approaches and
policies, such as those driven by the Kyoto Protocol. Those policies prioritising
mitigation actions using forest resources disregarded the following essential aspects
176 E. Cienciala
(and not only from the Czech forestry point of view): (1) the long-term forestry
production cycle; (2) the importance of other ecosystem services, such as water
retention, soil protection and biodiversity; and (3) perhaps most importantly, the
essential, non-separable linkage between forest adaptation and mitigation––a sim-
ple recognition that, without adaptation, there is no mitigation. In other words, spe-
cifically under changing environmental conditions, adaptation management must be
prioritised in order to secure the sustained provisioning of ecosystem services,
including climate mitigation. Failure to adequately adapt forests and forestry (within
an appropriate time and scope) is predestined to result in undesired reverse effects,
with forestry turning into a significant source of emissions instead of the expected
sink. This risk is being increasingly internationally recognised (Anderegg et al.
2020), and is also plainly demonstrated by the current situation in Czech forestry, as
detailed in the following sections.
CSF clearly links essential ecosystem services, stressing adaptation to secure
forest health and increase resilience, and promoting the important substitution func-
tion that wood products offer. However, CSF should also consider other fundamen-
tal constraints, such as governance issues and the legacy of past management. When
reviewing the factors responsible for the current forest decline in the Czech Republic,
as highlighted above, it becomes clear that a holistic CSF approach also needs to
address factors relating to governance, business models and/or specific management
actions against bark beetle outbreaks (Hlasny et al. 2019).
10.2.2 Forestry-Based Climate Mitigation
An earlier CSF case study using the Czech Republic (Nabuurs et al. 2018) included,
among other things, a mitigation-impact projection based on a calibration period up
to 2015. The model projection up to 2100 reported that the anticipated adaptive
management would result in a smaller sink in Czech forests in relation to the
business-as-usual scenario, only providing additional mitigation benefits after 2080,
together with more resilient forest stands. That study, however, did not anticipate
the scale of the current drought-induced forest decline that the Czech Republic has
been experiencing since 2015. This development significantly and negatively affects
the mitigation outlook for Czech forestry for the coming decades.
The carbon budget of Czech forestry, as reported in the recent greenhouse gas
emissions inventory submission (National Inventory Report, CHMI 2020) is illus-
trated in Fig. 10.2. The effect of the recent decline in coniferous forest stands is
obvious in the rapidly declining sink that became an emissions source in 2018, for
the first time since 1990. This means that the forest sector, which used to offset
about 6% of Czech national emissions, has turned into yet another source category,
with a notable magnitude of emissions. The contribution of harvested-wood prod-
ucts (HWPs) still counts, mostly acting as a sink in the Czech circumstance, and
corresponding to the generally increasing total harvest volume (Fig. 10.1). However,
the annual offset represented by HWPs is estimated to be about 1 Mt. CO2 for the
10
A. Forest land G. Harvested wood products
8
6
Emissions (Mt CO2 eq.)
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Fig. 10.2 Emissions contribution from the Czech forestry sector (preliminary data of IFER as of
April 2020). Negative values represent the sinking of emissions, positive values represent a source
of emissions. The data shown distinguish between the major United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change emissions categories: A––forest land, where emissions are deter-
mined mainly based on changes in living biomass; G––HWPs, where emissions are determined
based on changes in this pool
period 1990–2020, which is small in comparison to the total emissions of the coun-
try (134 Mt. CO2 eq. as of 2018). Overall, the emissions contribution from forestry,
including the HWPs offset, is currently 4.5% of the total emissions of the country
(Czech Hydrometeorological Institute 2020).
Data on woody material used for bioenergy remains uncertain, but has been esti-
mated to represent about 12% of the total harvest, annually (i.e. close to 2 Mm3 of
wood volume or about 1 Mt. of biomass), as of 2018. However, the extent to which
this amount contributes indirectly as a substitution effect in the energy sector is dif-
ficult to ascertain due to the inherent uncertainty in the related statistics and/or miss-
ing information.
In addition, there is the contribution of fast-growing woody plantations for
energy purposes, which is commonly accounted for under agriculture. In the Czech
Republic, the spatial extent of such systems is only about 3 kha, and this has stag-
nated for various reasons, with the result of currently producing only a marginal
climate-mitigation effect.
10.2.3 Towards Adaptive Forest Management
The forest policy-makers in the country did recognise the need to significantly
improve forest-stand resilience, specifically in the second National Forestry
Programme (Krejzar 2008). In the progamme’s Key Action 6, 12 measures were
178 E. Cienciala
defined and developed, their implementation designed to alleviate the impact of

climate change and extreme events on the forest sector (Cienciala 2012). It stressed
the need to grow diversified forest stands, employing the maximum use of natural
processes, diverse species compositions, natural regeneration, and a spectrum of
silvicultural practices to enhance the resiliency of forest stands. The accompanying
measures included specific actions to broadly support the main goals. Evidently,
implementation of these measures has been too slow and has not gone far enough to
reduce the large-scale, drought-induced decline and bark beetle outbreak in spruce-
dominated coniferous stands (as well as in pine and larch), as witnessed in recent
years (Hlasny et al. 2019). For example, the spatial representation of more-resilient
broadleaved tree species has increased by only by 5% in 2000–2018. Similarly, the
share of natural regeneration has only increased from 13.5 to 16.1% in the same
period (Ministry of Agriculture 2019).
The more-recent National Action Plan on Adaptation in the Czech Republic
(Ministry of the Environment 2017) stressed two fundamental prioritized measures
applicable for the forestry sector, namely
1. Support of the natural adaptive capacity of forests and strengthening of their
functioning under changing climate; and
2. protection and revitalisation of the natural water regime in forests.
The explicit implementation issues in the above measures have been undermined by
a sustained preference for the clearcut system and linked forestry operations, and
the unsupportable hoofed game stocks that effectively hinder use of natural
regeneration.
Obviously, these measures implicitly recognise that the precondition for any
mitigation effect realised in Czech forestry is to ensure the resiliency of forest stands
under changing climate conditions, with a specific focus on the water regime and
the prevention of drought. Also important to note is the emphasis on soil condi-
tions––the elementary resource for life and an essential part of forest ecosystems.
Only functional forest ecosystems can deliver the spectrum of expected ecosystem
services, with climate mitigation being only one of these, and being fully dependent
on the success of the adaptation measures.
The evolution of the situation in Czech forestry has led to the swift adoption of
an actual guiding forest-policy document––Conception of the governmental for-
estry policy until 2035 (Ministry of Agriculture 2020). Its declared four long-term
goals are:
1. Ensure sustained and full provisioning of all of forest ecosystem services for
future generations.
2. With respect to changing climate, increase biodiversity and the ecological stabil-
ity of forest ecosystems while retaining their productive functions.
3. Ensure competitiveness in forestry and linked sectors, and their importance in
regional development.
4. Enhance advisory services, education, research and innovation in forestry.
The development of Czech forest policy reflects the growing urgency and better
comprehension of the wide role of forest resources in society, with a notably
increased accentuation of environmental services and sustainability. In this respect,
Czech forest policy is becoming fully consistent with the current trends in European
policy, as expressed by Forest Europe, among other entities. For example, the
Concept (of forestry policy: Ministry of Agriculture 2020), in its goals, accords with
the recently announced ambitions of the European Commission’s Mission on Soil
Health and Food (Veerman et al. 2020) under the Horizon Europe Research and
Innovation Programme, which also concerns forestry.
The CSF principles align, in part, with the declared long-term goals of the Czech
Concept up to 2035. Specifically, the CSF pillars 2 (adaptive forest management)
and 3 (enhanced use of HWPs) address the goals of Concept 2035. However, it is
still to be seen to what extent the CSF’s primary goals of enhanced carbon storage
mitigation is prioritised as part of the current Czech forestry strategy, which has
very much been focused on the immediate management of the current local environ-
mental crisis.
10.2.4 Mitigation Outlook for Czech Forestry
What is expected, in terms of mitigation, from the Czech forestry sector in the com-
ing decades? The most recent outlook for mitigation was presented in the Czech
National Forest Accounting Plan (Ministry of the Environment 2017), in conjunc-
tion with setting a national forest reference level (FRL) under EU regulation
2018/841. The two presented scenarios were prepared using the calibrated CBM-
CSF3 model (Kull et al. 2016), and present a rather pessimistic outlook for Czech
forestry, in which it is projected to lose much of its carbon sequestration capacity in
the coming decades. In Fig. 10.3, we show two corresponding scenarios of emis-
sions (red and black), together with a third scenario (green) representing the most
up-to-date (as of June 2020) projection estimates (IFER—unpublished data 2019)
for combatting the current drought-induced bark beetle outbreak.
Each of these scenarios include emissions from the change in biomass carbon
stock and the HWP contribution, combined. The red scenario represents a develop-
ment with re-occurring bark beetle outbreaks each decade, whilst the black scenario
shows the pessimistic outlook of bark beetle outbreaks resulting in a reduction in
spruce growing stock by 80% by 2050, with the corresponding remaining areal
representation of spruce reduced to 10–15%, compared to ~50% as of 2018. The
green scenario counts on a more rapid stabilisation of forest health, with a resulting
reduction in spruce management approaching 20% by forest area. This green sce-
nario means a return to an overall carbon sink in the forest (biomass + HWPs) by
2030. The sink capacity would then remain strong for the following two decades,
mainly due to the significantly reduced harvesting potential of conifers and the only
gradually increasing harvesting possibilities in broadleaved tree species.
180 E. Cienciala
12
NIR 2019 est.
RED scenario
Emissions (Mt CO2 eq.)
6 BLACK scenario
GREEN scenario
-6
-12
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Fig. 10.3 Outlook of the emissions balance in Czech forestry to 2050, expressed by three sce-
narios, each including the biomass carbon pool and the contribution of harvested wood products
(IFER—unpublished data as of June 2020). See the text for the narrative of individual scenarios
Obviously, this possible development will have a significant impact on the eco-
nomics of forest owners. The requisite sanitary measures are, and will remain,
costly, and will not be compensated for by wood sales. As is already known, the
wood price has dropped significantly due to a current wood oversupply in European
countries. The Czech Republic currently sells its wood also to China, despite low
prices and increased transaction costs. The fact that the country is not able to
increase its own wood-processing capacity to make products with increased value
does not help the situation. However, with respect to the key mitigation instrument
of the EU––regulation 841/2018 on accounting for the land use, land-use change
and forestry sector during the ‘Paris’ period of 2021–2030––the Czech Republic
faces a challenge. The key element of this regulation is setting the FRL based on
management practices (including harvesting level), as of 2000–2009. With the cur-
rent down-correction imposed by the European Commission, the FRL for the Czech
Republic is set to ~6.1 Mt. CO2 eq. for 2021–2025. With respect to the projected
emissions in the green scenario, this FRL would be surpassed by 14 Mt. CO2 annu-
ally, representing an unforeseen economic loss for the country, realised through the
emissions allowance system. Clearly, there is a need to adjust the reference level
using technical correction, considering the major changes Czech forests have been
experiencing recently as a result of the disturbances.
10.3 Conclusions and Policy Implications
The case of the Czech Republic shows the importance of tailoring the general CSF
approach to regional circumstances. The bark beetle disturbance/calamity of recent
years has progressed to such a massive scale that the most immediate task for CSF
would be to enhance the adaptation and resilience of Czech forests, thereby also
seeking to increase their carbon sink potential in the long term. One important part
of CSF in the Czech case is that it needs to be institutional, organisational and have
governance aspects in general. These need to be fine-tuned and updated in a way
such that more efficient measures can be undertaken for adapting and improving
forest resilience, and sustaining the long-term environmental and social require-
ments of Czech forests. It is further stressed that:
1. Mitigation is to be understood as only one of the vital ecosystem services pro-
vided by forest ecosystems. Under the Czech conditions, soil protection, water
regulation and hosting biodiversity are increasingly being recognised as priority
services that are important to local society.
2. Preserving and increasing carbon storage in the long term is possible only
through the establishment of healthy, resilient and sustainably used forest eco-
systems, well adapted to changing growth environments, which implies that
adaptation must be prioritised to ensure a sustained mitigation effect from
forestry.
The current priorities of Czech forestry must be to halt forest decline, restore the
lost vegetation cover on clearcut soils, and intensify adaptive management in order
to create resilient forest ecosystems than can cope better with changing climate and
extreme climate events.
References
Anderegg WRL, Trugman AT, Badgley G, Anderson CM, Bartuska A, Ciais P, Cullenward D,
Field CB, Freeman J, Goetz SJ, Hicke JA, Huntzinger D, Jackson RB, Nickerson J, Pacala
S, Randerson JT (2020) Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests.
Science 368(6497):eaaz7005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005
Cienciala E (2012) Key Action 6 – Mitigate impacts of expected global climate change and extreme
meteorological events. Lesnicka práce 4, 232–234, in Czech
Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (CHMI) (2020) National greenhouse gas inventory report,
NIR (reported inventory 2018). CHMI, Prague. https://unfccc.int/ghg-inventories-annex-i-
parties/2020. Accessed 16 June 2021
Czech News Agency (CNA) (2020) Too slow reaction of Czech Forest, S.A., on the bark beetle
outbreak, stated the Czech Republic Supreme Audit Office. https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/
na-kurovcovou-kalamitu-reagovaly-lesy-cr-pomalu-zjistil-kont/r~6734c80ca94f11eab115ac1f
6b220ee8. Accessed 16 June 2021, in Czech
Czech Statistical Office (2020) Forestry - 2019. The publication Forestry gives overall information
on forestry activities in the Czech Republic, accessible digitally at https://www.czso.cz/csu/
czso/lesnictvi-2019
182 E. Cienciala
Hlásny T, Krokene P, Liebhold A, Montagné-Huck C, Müller J, Qin H, Raffa K, Schelhaas M-J,

Seidl R, Svoboda M, Viiri H (2019) Living with bark beetles: impacts, outlook and manage-
ment options. From science to policy 8. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Krejzar T (ed) (2008) National Forest Programme for the period until 2013. On the authority of the
Ministry of Agriculture. Forest Management Institute, Prague
Kull SJ, Rampley GJ, Morken S, Metsaranta J, Neilson ET, Kurz WA (2016) Operational-scale
carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector (CBM-CFS3): version 1.2, user’s guide.
Northern Forestry Centre, Canada
Ministry of Agriculture (MA) (2019) Report on the state of forests and forestry in the Czech
Republic in 2018. MA, Prague (in Czech)
Ministry of Agriculture (MA) (2020) Conception of the government forestry policy until 2035.
MA, Prague (in Czech)
Ministry of the Environment (ME) (2017) National action plan on adaptation to climate change.
ME, Prague (in Czech)
Nabuurs GJ, Delacote P, Ellison D, Hanewinkel M, Hetemäki L, Lindner M (2017) By 2050 the
8:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Nabuurs G-J, Verkerk PJ, Schelhaas M-J, González Olabarria JR, Trasobares A, Cienciala E
(2018) Climate-smart forestry: mitigation impacts in three European regions. European Forest
Institute, Joensuu
Veerman C, Correia TP, Bastioli C, Biro B, Bouma J, Cienciala E, Emmett B, Frison EA, Grand A,
Hristov L, Kriaučiūnienė Z, Pogrzeba M, Soussana J-F, Vela C, Wittkowski R (2020) Caring
for soil is caring for life. European Commission, Brussels. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/4ebd2586-fc85-11ea-b44f-01aa75ed71a1. Accessed 21 Jan 2021
Verkerk PJ, Costanza R, Hetemäki L, Kubiszewski I, Leskinen P, Nabuurs GJ, Potočnik J, Palahí
M (2020) Climate-smart forestry: the missing link. For Policy Econ 115:102164. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102164
Zalud Z, Trnka M, Hlavinka P et al (2020) Agricultural drought in the Czech Republic – develop-
ment, impact and adaptation. Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic, Prague (in Czech)
Chapter 11
Finland
Heli Peltola, Tero Heinonen, Jyrki Kangas, Ari Venäläinen, Jyri Seppälä,
and Lauri Hetemäki
Abstract Finland is the most forested country in the EU – forests cover 74–86% of
the land area, depending on the definition and source. Increasing carbon sequestration
from the atmosphere, and by storing it in forests (trees and soil) will be one important
part of the Finnish climate smart forestry strategy. However, just maximizing the car-
bon storage of forests may not be the best option in the long run, although it may
provide the best climate-cooling benefits in the short term. This is because the increas-
ing risks of large-scale natural disturbances may turn forests, at least partially, into
carbon sources. The climate change adaptation and mitigation should therefore be
considered simultaneously. Different adaptation and risk management actions will be
needed in Finnish forests in the coming decades to increase forest resilience to mul-
tiple damage risks. This could be done, for example, by increasing the share of mix-
tures of conifers and broadleaves forests instead of monocultures. Yet, the CSF
strategy should also include the production of wood-based products that act as long-
term carbon storage and/or substitute for more GHG-emission-intensive materials and
energy. Doing this in a way which also enhances biodiversity and sustainable provi-
sioning of multiple ecosystem services, is a key. Moreover, increasing forest land – for
example, by planting on abandoned or low-productivity agricultural land, especially
on soils with a high peat content – would enhance climate change mitigation.
Keywords Forestry · Boreal forests · Climate change · Adaptation · Risk

Management · Climate change mitigation ·
H. Peltola (*) · T. Heinonen · J. Kangas

A. Venäläinen
J. Seppälä
L. Hetemäki

184 H. Peltola et al.
11.1 Finland’s Forest Resources and Their Utilization
Finland is the most forested country in the EU, in terms of land area (Table 11.1).
Depending on the definition of forest land, and the source, forests cover 74–86% of
the land area. Finland’s forests account for around 14% of the total EU27 forest
land. The volume of growing stock and increments have almost doubled in the past
five decades (Fig. 11.1; Finnish Forest Statistics 2019, 2020). Improved forest
Table 11.1 Overview of Finnish forest sector

Forest resources
Area of forest land 26.3 million ha, of which 77% is productive and 10% poorly
productive (the rest is unproductive land, forest roads, etc.)
Strictly protected forest area and 2.2 and 0.5 million ha
biodiversity conservation areas
in commercial forests
Total volume of growing stock 2482 Mm3
Carbon storage of forest land 3200 Mt. CO2-eq. in forest biomass and 14,000 Mt. CO2-eq.
in soil
(most soil carbon in peatlands)
Net carbon sink of forest land 25.6 Mt CO2-eq. in forest land in 2019, corresponding to 48%
of total GHG emissions in Finland (additionally, 3.4 Mt
CO2-eq. in wood-based products, with estimated substitution
impact of 27 Mt CO2-eq.)
Average annual growth of 108 Mm3 year−1
growing stock
Total volume of harvested ≈78 Mm3 in 2018, this year being the all-time high
roundwood
Total drain (harvested ≈ 94 Mm3 in 2018
roundwood, logging residues
and natural drain)
Average growing stock volume 119 m3 ha−1
on forest land (productive/
poorly productive land)
Tree species composition 50% scots pine, 30% Norway spruce, 17% silver and downy
birch, and 3% other broadleaves
Ownership
Private 52%
State 35%
Companies 7%
Municipalities, parishes, funds, 6%
associations
Economic contribution
The value added in the forest 9 billion euros in 2019, 4.3% of the national economy
sector
Employees in the Finnish forest 66,000 (forestry 26,000, forest industries 40,000) in 2019
sector
Source: Finnish Forest Statistics (2019, 2020), Statistics Finland (2020)
11 Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Finland 185
Fig. 11.1 Development of growing stock volume on forest land and poorly productive forest land,
and total roundwood removals, increment and drain of the growing stock, in past decades in
Finnish forests. (Sources: Finnish Forest Statistics 2019, 2020)
management practices have largely contributed to this change (Finnish Forest

Statistics 2020). The forest growth has been increased through the ditching of peat-
lands, forest fertilization, maintaining higher growing stock (per hectare) in fre-
quent thinnings, regeneration of poorly productive forests, and using improved
forest regeneration methods and materials (seedlings and seeds), respectively.
Additionally environmental change (e.g. climate change and nitrogen deposition)
has contributed to this change (Henttonen et al. 2017). Another reason for this
change is that annual wood removal in the last five decades, has been, on average,
clearly less than the increment of the forests.
On the other hand, intensified forest management targeting for increased wood
production has also affected harmfully forest biodiversity and the provisioning of
some ecosystem services (Lehtonen et al. 2021). Also, the use of forest fertilization,
and ditch network maintenance in peatland forests, have increased nutrient leaching
and carbon emissions from the soil (Finér et al. 2020; Lehtonen et al. 2021). Until
recently, the management of Finnish forests has been based, almost solely, on even-
aged rotation forestry. However, interest among forest owners, professionals and
general society in diversifying forest management practices and increasing provi-
sioning of multiple ecosystem services has increased the attractiveness of uneven-
aged management and mixed-species forestry (Díaz-Yáñez et al. 2020).
According to the National Resources Institute Finland, the maximum sustainable
roundwood removal potential of Finnish forests, on land assigned for timber pro-
duction, is 84 Mm3 year−1, on average, for 2015–2024. Annual wood removal in
recent years has corresponded to an average of 75% of the total forest growth, which
includes the growth of strictly protected forests and natural drainage (Fig. 11.1).
This percentage is clearly higher for Finnish forests compared to the EU average,
with Finland’s forest sector having a relatively bigger role in the country’s economy
than is the case for any other EU country. Altogether, around 620,000 private forest
owners sell about 80% of the Finnish forest industries’ total domestic wood supply.
Thus, the income generated by forestry is spread among a relatively large part of the
population.
Besides the demand for wood production, there are increasingly high demands
for forest-related recreation, tourism, biodiversity and forest carbon sinks. No for-
estry measures are allowed on 10% of the most strictly protected forested areas,
which are mostly located in Northern Finland (Table 11.1). These forests are impor-
tant for both recreation, tourism and biodiversity. Biodiversity is preserved in
Southern Finland, in forests that are also used for wood production, through the
government-funded Forest Biodiversity Programme (METSO, annual funding of
7–10 million euros). This targets forest owners, with the aim of increasing voluntary
forest protection on their lands by 96,000 ha by 2025. Preserving and improving the
biodiversity values of forests are also considered in the everyday management of
commercial forests.
There are increasing EU and domestic pressures to increase the capacity of the
forest carbon sink in Finland, such as the Green Deal and the updating of the land
use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation. According to the LULUCF
regulation, for Finland, the reference level for a forest carbon sink with forest prod-
ucts is 29.4 million CO2- equivalent (CO2-eq.) tons in 2021–2025 (Suomen ilmasto-
paneeli 2021). However, the actual forest carbon sink can vary significantly from
one year to the next, along with the annual harvesting levels (since the 1990s, these
have been 17.5–47.4 Mt CO2-eq., annually), which are largely affected by forest-
industry business cycles. For example, in 2018 the forest carbon sink was clearly
lower than in the previous and succeeding years, due to a higher total annual volume
of harvested roundwood (Table 11.1). Given the various demands on Finnish for-
ests, it is necessary to find a balance. Moreover, it is crucial to try to minimize the
trade-offs and maximize the synergies between the different uses of forests. In this
case-study, we analysed what the climate-smart forestry (CSF) approach could
mean in the Finnish context in the coming decades.
11.2 Impacts of Changing Climate, Forest Management

and Harvesting
11.2.1 Development of Forest Resources and Carbon Sinks
Compared to the reference period of 1981–2010, the annual mean temperature in

Finland may increase by 1.9–5.6 °C and the mean annual precipitation by 6–18% by
the 2080s under different GHG scenarios (i.e. Representative Concentration
Pathways, RCPs) (Ruosteenoja et al. 2016). Forest growth is generally projected to
increase significantly more in the northern boreal zone of Finland than in the south-
ern boreal zone (Fig. 11.2), due to the differences in prevailing climatic conditions
(e.g. temperature, precipitation) and forest structure (e.g. age and tree species com-
position) in these regions (Kellomäki et al. 2008). Overall, the increase in forest
growth will come from birch (Betula spp.), in particular, but also Scots pine (Pinus
sylvestris) (Kellomäki et al. 2018). For Norway spruce (Picea abies), the growing
conditions may become suboptimal, especially in the southern boreal zone, along
with increasing summer temperatures and drought.
Fig. 11.2 Left: Spatial distribution of the percentage change in tree growth (diameter) in Finland
over all tree species on upland (mineral) forest inventory plots, given separately for the coming two
30-year periods (2040–2069 and 2070–2099), under the RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 scenarios, compared
to the period 1981–2010 (Kellomäki et al. 2018). If considering peatlands, the positive and nega-
tive impacts would be slightly stronger. The temperature sum lines across the country separate the
southern (TS > 1200 d.d.), central (1000 d.d. < TS < 1200 d.d.), and northern (TS < 1000 d.d.)
boreal regions. Right: Timber volume development (top) and average carbon stock in trees and soil
(bottom) on forest land currently available for timber production in Finland in 2016–2116, with
scenarios of 60-, 70- and 80-Mm3 year−1 timber cutting targets under the RCP2.6 scenario, with
intensified forest management (data from Seppälä et al. 2019). The increasing abiotic and biotic
damage risks under climate change were not considered in these scenario analyses
In addition to the severity of climate change, the intensity of forest management

and harvesting will also affect the future development of Finnish forests, and conse-
quently timber supply, the carbon sink and the balance of forestry (e.g. Hynynen
et al. 2015; Heinonen et al. 2017, 2018). If assuming mild (RCP2.6) climate change
and annual mean timber harvests of 60–80 Mm3 year−1, the average annual volume
increment could be increased by 4.5–5.7 Mm3 year−1 in 2016–2116, and timber
volume may reach 2.7–5.0 Bm3 by 2116, on forest land currently available for tim-
ber production (Fig. 11.2), if increasing the use of forest fertilization and improved
regeneration material (Heinonen et al. 2018).
Forest biomass contributes about 23–30% to the total carbon stock of forests (in
trees and soil, including mineral soil and the aerobic layer of peat) (Fig. 11.2).
Maintaining lower harvesting levels increases the carbon sink and the balance of
forests (in trees and soil), but it decreases the carbon stock in wood-based products.
Overall, the long-term carbon stock of wood-based products is small compared to
that of forest biomass and soil. This is because a relatively small share of harvested
wood is used in wood-based products with long-life cycles. In this sense, an increase
in the wood harvesting level always results in less carbon being sink and a lower
forestry carbon balance (including carbon in the forest and wood-based products),
compared to a situation where wood harvesting is not increased in the coming few
decades (Heinonen et al. 2017; Seppälä et al. 2019). On the other hand, a consider-
ation of the substitution effects of wood-based products may change this for-
estry carbon balance, the magnitude of change depending on the production
portfolio (Hurmekoski et al. 2020).
11.2.2 Abiotic and Biotic Disturbance Risks
Multiple abiotic and biotic disturbance risks to Finnish forests and forestry are
expected to increase at different spatial and temporal scales, which may at least
partially eliminate the positive effects of climate change on forest productivity and
carbon sinks (Reyer et al. 2017). Warmer and wetter winters are expected to increase
damage by windstorms, heavy snow loading and pathogens (e.g. Heterobasidion
spp, root rot), while warmer and drier summer conditions are expected to increase
insect pests (e.g. European spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus), droughts and for-
est fires, particularly in coniferous forests. The occurrence of different damaging
agents (excluding snow extremes) is expected to increase, especially in southern
and middle Finland (Mäkelä et al. 2014; Lehtonen et al. 2016a, b; Ruosteenoja et al.
2018; Venäläinen et al. 2020). A shortening of the soil frost period from late autumn
to early spring will increase the wind damage risk, despite no great change in the
wind regime (Lehtonen et al. 2019). Wind- and snow-damaged timber left in the
forest will increase the amount of breeding material for bark beetles, an outbreak of
which may, together with drought, further increase forest fire risk, through increased
amounts of easily flammable deadwood. Attacks by Heterobasidion species may
increase due to increasing tree injuries during harvesting in the unfrozen soil season
(Honkaniemi et al. 2017). Wood decay will also increase the risk of wind damage
due to poorer anchorage and stem resistance of trees.
11.3 Nexus for Adaptation, Resilience and Mitigation

of Climate Change
11.3.1 Adaption to Climate Change and Risk Management
Different adaptation and risk management actions will be needed in Finnish forests
in the coming decades in order to adapt appropriately to climate change and to
increase forest resilience to multiple damage risks (Venäläinen et al. 2020). Possible
adaptation and risk management actions evaluated in Finland, have so far consid-
ered almost solely even-aged forestry. However, some of these are also applicable to
uneven-aged and mixed-species forestry.
In the southern boreal zone, a decrease in the cultivation of Norway spruce may
be needed, particularly on forest sites with a relatively low water holding capacity,
which are more suitable for Scots pine. Also, the potential for an increase in spring
and summer droughts should be considered when planting seedlings or seeding in
order to increase the success of forest regeneration. Additionally, by favouring
growing mixtures of conifers and broadleaves (e.g. spruce and pine, spruce and
birch, or pine and birch) instead of monocultures, forest resilience may be increased
against multiple damage risks. Overall, timely precommercial thinning and more
frequent or heavier commercial thinnings may also be needed in order to increase
forest resilience and forest growth and to avoid an increase in natural mortality in
stands that are too dense. A shortening of the rotation length may also be needed in
order to increase forest resilience, especially for Norway spruce, which may be
subject to multiple forest disturbance risks (e.g. wind damage, drought,
European spruce bark beetle and Heterobasidion spp, root rot).
In planning and implementing thinnings and clearcuts, the increasing risks of
wind damage should be considered, especially in the southern and central boreal
zones, where strong winds will blow more frequently under unfrozen soil condi-
tions (Laapas et al. 2019). Especially on high-risk areas, heavy thinnings should be
avoided on the upwind edges of new clear cuts, and the creation of large height dif-
ferences should be avoided between adjacent stands in the final harvesting, respec-
tively (Heinonen et al. 2009). It is also recommended that forest fertilization is
avoided at the same time as thinning in high-risk areas for wind and snow damage.
Consequently, in the middle and northern boreal zones, timely precommercial and
commercial thinning may increase the resilience of Scots pine and birch stands to
snow damage. Also, the avoidance of forest fertilization on forest sites at high alti-
tudes is suggested in order to decrease snow damage risks, regardless of tree species
(> 200 m above sea-level). Timber damaged by wind and snow should also be har-
vested in a timely manner and transported out of the forest (also undamaged har-
vested timber) in order to avoid unnecessarily increasing the amount of breeding
material for bark beetles. This also holds for bark-beetle-infested and Heterobasidion-
infected trees.
Because climate change will induce multiple damage risks in Finnish forests and
forestry, the probability of devastating cascading events is also projected to increase
(Venäläinen et al. 2020). However, their severity may vary significantly at different
spatial and temporal scales. Therefore, frequent adjustments to forest management
practices in response to changing growing conditions will be required, in order to
adapt to climate change and maintain forest resilience. This is also important from
the climate change mitigation point of view because large-scale natural disturbances
may act as significant carbon sources (Kauppi et al. 2018). Therefore, the multiple
risks to forests need to be considered simultaneously in the planning and implemen-
tation of forest management. The flexible use of diverse management strategies,
instead of one single management strategy (e.g. even-, uneven- and any-aged man-
agement) may help to ensure forest resilience and simultaneously provide multiple
ecosystem services for society (Díaz-Yáñez et al. 2020).
11.3.2 Climate Change Mitigation
A forest-rich country like Finland can contribute to climate change mitigation espe-
cially by increasing carbon sequestration from the atmosphere, and by storing it in
forests (trees and soil), but also by producing wood-based products that can act as
long-term carbon storage and/or can substitute for more GHG-emission-intensive
materials and energy (Hurmekoski et al. 2020). Whether the carbon sink of Finnish
forests (and the forest sector) will remain at the current level or increase/decrease in
the future will strongly depend on the intensity of forest management and harvest-
ing related to wood demand in the coming decades (see Heinonen et al. 2017, 2018).
The carbon sink will also be affected by the severity of climate change and natural
disturbances (Venäläinen et al. 2020).
In order to increase the climate benefits of harvested wood, it should be increas-
ingly used for products and fuels that will release fewer GHG emissions to the
atmosphere than the fossil-based products and fuels it is substituted for (Hurmekoski
et al. 2020). However, the substitution effects must be, on average, even doubled for
additional wood harvest if, for example, 80 Mm3 year−1 is harvested annually instead
of 60 Mm3 year−1 (in the coming 100 years) (Seppälä et al. 2019). This would be
needed in order to compensate the lower carbon stocks of Finnish forests with
increased harvest levels (Seppälä et al. 2019). On the other hand, lower harvesting
levels in Finland would most likely increase harvesting in other countries. In the
longer term, all sustainable uses of renewable wood that compensate for the use of
fossil resources might be seen as remaining beneficial because we should be giving
up using fossil resources as soon as possible, from the viewpoint of mitigating cli-
mate warming in the long term.
Forest growth will also decline, along with aging, which, together with a large
volume of growing stock, could promote multiple natural disturbances and, conse-
quently, carbon release into the atmosphere over the long term. Old-growth forests
also sequestrate less carbon than younger forests, but they may offer significant
carbon storage (Gundersen et al. 2021; Kellomäki et al. 2021). Forests also contrib-
ute to several other climate impacts, in addition to GHG emissions (e.g. albedo,
biogenic aerosols, evaporation and surface roughness), which may be affected,
directly or indirectly, through changes in forest cover and structure, and by the
intensity of forest management and harvesting (Kalliokoski et al. 2020; Kellomäki
et al. 2021). The opposing effects of changes in albedo and carbon stocks may also
largely cancel each other in managed forests with little remaining net climate effect
(Kellomäki et al. 2021). In short term, no management option may provide larger
net climate benefits than even-aged or uneven-aged management, but increasing use
of this option may require proper incentives such as compensation for lost harvest
incomes for forest owners.
11.4 Climate-Smart Forestry Strategies and Policy Measures
Despite the important role of the Finnish forest sector in the national GHG balance,
maximizing the carbon storage of forests may not be the best option in the long run,
although it may provide the best climate-cooling benefits in the short term. This is
because an increase in large-scale natural disturbances (e.g. storms, forest fires and
European spruce bark beetle outbreaks) may turn forests, at least partially, into car-
bon sources that release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Instead, in
CSF, it is preferential to both increase the carbon stocks and sinks in forests, and
increasingly use harvested wood for products and fuels, which will release fewer
GHG emissions into the atmosphere, rather than the fossil-based products and fuels
they are substituting for. At the same time, maintaining biodiversity and sustainably
provisioning multiple ecosystem services should be ensured (Heinonen et al. 2017;
Díaz-Yáñez et al. 2020).
Overall, living forest biomass and mineral soils (decaying organic matter and
soil organic matter) remove carbon from the atmosphere (net carbon sink), and
organic soils (peatlands) emit carbon (net carbon source) (Fig. 11.3). The harvesting
level affects forest carbon storage and sinks more than forest management practices
and ongoing climate change (Heinonen et al. 2017, 2018; Seppälä et al. 2019).
Fig. 11.3 Emissions (positive sign) and removals (negative sign) of Mt CO2-eq. from different
land-use categories (top) and forest land (bottom) in 1990–2019 in Finland (*partial estimation for
2019). (Source: Statistics Finland 2020)
However, forest carbon sinks and storage could be increased in even-aged for-
estry by increasing the use of improved forest regeneration material and forest fer-
tilization, and by maintaining sufficient growing stock in thinnings (Lehtonen et al.
2021). Also, nutrient leaching and GHG emissions may be decreased on peatlands
by maintaining a high enough soil water table level. This could be done by using
uneven-aged forestry (especially selective cuttings) on suitable sites, and by avoid-
ing unnecessary ditch network maintenance (Ojanen et al. 2019; Leppä et al. 2020a,
b; Finér et al. 2020). This is necessary because a low soil water table will increase
CO2 emissions (Ojanen et al. 2019), and N2O emissions, especially on fertile peat-
land sites (Minkkinen et al. 2020). On the other hand, CH4 emissions may be nota-
ble on peatland sites with a high soil water table.
Increasing forest land – for example, by planting on abandoned or low-
productivity agricultural land, especially on soils with a high peat content – would
be a positive action when it comes to climate change mitigation. On the other hand,
also decreasing the deforestation may be effective; currently, deforestation is occur-
ring at a rate of about 10,000 ha, or 0.04% of the total forest area, annually
(Kärkkäinen et al. 2019). Increasing the use of by-products for textiles and wood–
plastic composites, in place of kraft pulp and biofuel, may also help to provide
greater overall substitution credits compared to increasing the level of wood use for
construction (Hurmekoski et al. 2020).
To conclude, forests and forest-based bioeconomy can contribute considerably to
climate change mitigation in forested countries like Finland, through reducing GHGs
in the atmosphere, especially by increasing the carbon sequestration and storage in
forests, but also through carbon storage in wood-based products with long life-cycles
and the substitution of fossil-intensive resources (Hurmekoski et al. 2020). However,
at the same time, there is a pressure to both diversify forest management and increase
the provisioning of versatile ecosystem services for society. The forest management
implemented today strongly affects the future supply of different ecosystem services
(Heinonen et al. 2017). Overall, CSF requires appropriate adaptations of forest man-
agement and utilization of forests under climate change, by taking account the multi-
ple risks to forests and forestry. Different management strategies may be needed,
depending on the region (and site) and time span, in order to ensure forest resilience
and the simultaneous provisioning of multiple ecosystem services for society. This is
important also from the climate change mitigation point of view.
Acknowledgments Heli Peltola thanks the financial support from the OPTIMAM project (grant
number 317741) funded by the Academy of Finland.
References
Díaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Peltola H (2020) Multifunctional comparison of different

management strategies in boreal forests. For Int J For Res 93(1):84–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/
forestry/cpz053
Finér L, Lepistö A, Karlsson K, Räike A, Härkönen L, Huttunen M et al (2020) Drainage for for-
estry increases N, P and TOC export to boreal surface waters. Sci Total Environ 762:144098.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144098
Finnish Forest Statistics (2019) Eds: Peltola A, Ihalainen A, Mäki-Simola E, Peltola A, Sauvula-
Seppälä T, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Vaahtera E, Ylitalo E. Natural Resources Institute Finland.
Helsinki, Finland, 198 pp. https://stat.luke.fi/sites/default/files/suomen_metsatilastot_2019_
verkko2.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Finnish Forest Statistics (2020) Eds: Peltola A, Räty M, Sauvula-Seppälä T, Torvelainen J, Uotila
E, Vaahtera E, Ylitalo E. Natural Resources Institute Finland. Helsinki, Finland, 198 pp. https://
stat.luke.fi/sites/default/files/suomen_metsatilastot_2020_verkko.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Gundersen P, Thybring EE, Nord-Larsen T, Vesterdal L, Nadelhoffer KJ, Johannsen VK (2021)
Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated. Nature 591:E21–E23. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-021-03266-z
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Ikonen V-P, Peltola H, Venäläinen A, Dupont S (2009) Integrating the
risk of wind damage into forest planning. For Ecol Manag 258(7):1567–1577. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.006
Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Mehtätalo L, Asikainen A, Kangas J, Peltola H (2017) Scenario analy-
ses on the effects of harvesting intensity on development of forest resources, timber supply,
carbon balance and biodiversity of Finnish forestry. Forest Policy Econ 80:80–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.011
ests in a changing climate. Can J For 48:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0118
Henttonen HM, Nöjd P, Mäkinen H (2017) Environment-induced growth changes in the Finnish
forests during 1971–2010 – an analysis based on National Forest Inventory. For Ecol Manag
386:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.044
Honkaniemi J, Lehtonen M, Väisänen H, Peltola H (2017) Effects of wood decay by Heterobasidion
annosum on the vulnerability of Norway spruce stands to wind damage: a mechanistic model-
ling approach. Can J For 47(6):777–787. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0505
Hurmekoski E, Myllyviita T, Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Kilpeläinen A, Pukkala T et al (2020) Impact
of structural changes in wood-using industries on net carbon emissions in Finland. J Ind Ecol
24(4):899–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12981
Hynynen J, Salminen H, Ahtikoski A, Huuskonen S, Ojansuu R, Siipilehto J, Eerikäinen K (2015)
Long-term impacts of forest management on biomass supply and forest resource develop-
ment: a scenario analysis for Finland. Eur J For Res 134(3):415–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10342-014-0860-0
Kalliokoski T, Bäck J, Boy M, Kulmala M, Kuusinen N, Mäkelä A et al (2020) Mitigation impact
of different harvest scenarios of Finnish forests that account for albedo, aerosols, and trade-offs
of carbon sequestration and avoided emissions. Front For Glob Change 3:562044. https://doi.
org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.562044
Kärkkäinen L, Haakana M, Heikkinen J, Helin J, Hirvelä H, Jauhiainen L et al (2019)
Maankäyttösektorin toimien mahdollisuudet ilmastotavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi
Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 67/2018 (in Finnish). http://urn.
fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-618-8. Accessed 27 May 2021
Kauppi P, Hanewinkel M, Lundmark L, Nabuurs G-J, Peltola H, Trasobares A, Hetemäki L (2018)
Climate smart forestry in Europe. European Forest Institute. https://efi.int/sites/default/files/
files/publication-bank/2018/Climate_Smart_Forestry_in_Europe.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed
boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Philos
Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 363(1501):2341–2351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2204
Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Heinonen T, Asikainen A, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2018) Temporal
and spatial change in diameter growth of boreal scots pine, Norway spruce and birch under
recent-generation (CMIP5) global climate model 4 projections for the 21st century. Forests
9(3):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9030118
Kellomäki S, Väisänen H, Kirschbaum MUF, Kirsikka-Aho S, Peltola H (2021) Effects of different

management options of Norway spruce on radiative forcing through changes in carbon stock
and albedo. For Int J For Res cpab010. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpab010
Laapas M, Lehtonen I, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2019) 10-year return levels of maximum wind
speeds under frozen and unfrozen soil forest conditions in Finland. Climate 7(5):62. https://doi.
org/10.3390/cli7050062
Lehtonen I, Kämäräinen M, Gregow H, Venäläinen A, Peltola H (2016a) Heavy snow loads in
Finnish forests respond regionally asymmetrically to projected climate change. Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 16:2259–2271. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2259-2016
Lehtonen I, Venäläinen A, Kämäräinen M, Peltola H, Gregow H (2016b) Risk of large-scale
forest fires in boreal forests in Finland under changing climate. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
16:239–253. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-239-2016
Lehtonen I, Venäläinen A, Kämäräinen M, Asikainen A, Laitila J, Anttila P, Peltola H (2019)
Projected decrease in wintertime bearing capacity on different forest and soil types in Finland
under a warming climate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:1611–1631. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-23-1611-2019
Lehtonen A, Aro L, Haakana M, Haikarainen S, Heikkinen J, Huuskonen S et al (2021)
Maankäyttösektorin ilmastotoimenpiteet: Arvio päästövähennysmahdollisuuksista.
Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 7/2021 (In Finnish). Natural Resources Institute
Finland. Helsinki, Finland, 121 pp. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-380-152-3. Accessed 27
May 2021
Leppä K, Hökkä H, Laiho R, Launiainen S, Lehtonen A, Mäkipää R et al (2020a) Selection cut-
tings as a tool to control water table level in boreal drained peatland forests. Front Earth Sci
8:576510. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.576510
Leppä K, Korkiakoski M, Nieminen M, Laiho R, Hotanen J-P, Kieloaho A-J et al (2020b)
Vegetation controls of water and energy balance of a drained peatland forest: responses to
alternative harvesting practices. Agric For Meteorol 295:108198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2020.108198
Mäkelä H, Venäläinen A, Jylhä K, Lehtonen I, Gregow H (2014) Probabilistic projections of
climatological forest fire danger in Finland. Clim Res 60:73–85. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/24896175
Minkkinen K, Ojanen P, Koskinen M, Penttilä T (2020) Nitrous oxide emissions of undrained,
forestry-drained, and rewetted boreal peatlands. For Ecol Manag 478:118494. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118494
Ojanen P, Penttilä T, Tolvanen A, Hotanen J-P, Saarimaa M, Nousiainen H, Minkkinen K (2019)
Long-term effect of fertilization on the greenhouse gas exchange of low-productive peatland
forests. For Ecol Manag 432:786–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.015
bances amplifying or cancelling out climate change-induced productivity changes in European
forests? Environ Res Lett 12(3):034027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5ef1
Ruosteenoja K, Jylhä K, Kämäräinen M (2016) Climate projections for Finland under the RCP forc-
ing scenarios. Geophysica 51: 17–50. http://www.geophysica.fi/pdf/geophysica_2016_51_1-
2_017_ruosteenoja.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Ruosteenoja K, Markkanen T, Venäläinen A, Räisänen P, Peltola H (2018) Seasonal soil moisture
and drought occur - rence in Europe in CMIP5 projections for the 21st century. Clim Dyn
50:1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3671-4
Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kilpeläinen A, Mattila T, Myllyviita T et al (2019) Effect of
increased wood harvesting and utilization on required greenhouse gas displacement factors
of wood-based products and fuels. J Environ Manag 247:580–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.06.031
Statistics Finland (2020) Suomen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt 1990–2019. Helsinki, Finland (in
Finnish), 83 pp. https://stat.fi/static/media/uploads/tup/khkinv/yymp_kahup_1990-2019_2020.
pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Suomen ilmastopaneeli (2021) Ilmastolakiin kirjattavat pitkän aikavälin päästö- ja nielutavoit-

teet – Ilmastopaneelin analyysi ja suositukset. Suomen ilmastopaneelin raportti 1/2021 (in
Finnish), 13 p. https://www.ilmastopaneeli.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ilmastopaneelin-
raportti_ilmastolain-suositukset_final.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2021
Venäläinen A, Lehtonen I, Laapas M, Ruosteenoja K, Tikkanen O-P, Viiri H et al (2020) Climate
change induces multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: a literature review. Glob
Change Biol 26:4178–4196. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15183
Chapter 12
Germany
Marc Hanewinkel, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik, and Rasoul Yousefpour
Abstract Forests cover approximately one-third of Germany’s territory. They are

among the most productive forests in Europe and in a position to contribute consid-
erably to climate change mitigation. Germany has set national targets for climate
mitigation via forests and measures such as conversion towards mixed and climate-
adapted forests; a stronger control on the sustainability of imported solid biofuels;
an increase in forest area; a reduction in the emissions related to forest soils, espe-
cially on drained peatlands; and a reduction in land take to less than 30 ha day−1.
Climate change is already exerting severe economic, environmental and social
impacts on German forests and the forest-based sector, and this trend is likely to
continue and intensify in the future. The key question for future is: how best to opti-
mise the mitigation potential of the forests while at the same time adapting the for-
ests to deal with ongoing climate change. This situation calls for a very careful
balancing of strategies and a holistic approach, which the CSF framework can pro-
vide. Our simulation indicated that the opportunity costs of using high-valued and
productive species, such as Norway spruce, for mitigation purposes (i.e. by the in-
situ accumulation of carbon) produces high opportunity costs, while species of less
value, such as European beech, would be better suited for this purpose. In order to
follow a systematic approach combining mitigation and adaptation, we propose a
generic framework for adaptation that takes into account the cost efficiency of all
measures, and includes this in suggesting the most efficient ways to increase the
mitigation potential of the forests in Germany. Current and emerging forest bio-
economy products also offer significant potential for the future mitigation potential
via substitution and carbon storage.
Keywords Climate-Smart Forestry · Mitigation-adaptation generic framework ·

Cost-efficiency
M. Hanewinkel (*) · A. Lessa Derci Augustynczik · R. Yousefpour

University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

198 M. Hanewinkel et al.
12.1 Climate Change and the Forest Sector in Germany
Climate change is exerting unprecedented pressure on German forests and their

capacity to deliver ecosystem services, with an increase in drought, bark beetle and
wind damage during the last few years. This poses a major challenge for the man-
agement of forest resources, where we need to not only balance the provisioning of
different ecosystem services, but also anticipate and adapt to future climate impacts,
and enhance the role of forest ecosystems in climate-mitigation portfolios. This is a
difficult task, since the multiple uses of forests may give rise to trade-offs that need
to be resolved, especially those concerning wood production goals, biodiversity
conservation and climate protection (German Advisory Council on Global Change
[WBGU] 2020).
Climate-smart forestry (CSF) has recently emerged as a framework for tackling
these issues and enhancing the mitigation potential of forest ecosystems, while
acknowledging the effects of climate change on forest dynamics and taking action
to overcome these. Simultaneously, it considers the socioeconomic aspects of forest
management (Nabuurs et al. 2017). In this context, policy and management must
seek efficient solutions for the forest sector in order to mitigate climate change. The
promotion of more-stable species compositions and higher structural diversity via
modifications to the thinning and harvesting regimes have been proposed as a way
of coordinating the adaptation and mitigation role of forest ecosystems in climate-
mitigation efforts (Verkerk et al. 2020). Similarly, a focus on policies that promote
the substitution effects of fossil-intensive materials by wood products has been
viewed as a cost-effective way towards climate neutrality.
Forests cover approximately one-third of Germany’s territory (Table 12.1).
German forests are among the most productive forests in Europe, with an average
annual increment of 11.2 m3 ha−1 year−1, and are thus in a position to contribute
considerably to mitigation as part of a CSF approach. For example, in the period
from 2002 to 2012, an average of around 76 million m3/year were harvested in
German forests. This is clearly below the average annual increment, highlighting
the potential for an increase in the mitigation potential via carbon storage in wood
products and substitution effects.
Germany has set national targets for climate mitigation via forest ecosystems.
Among the milestones proposed for the next decade are: a conversion towards
mixed and climate-adapted forests; a stronger control on the sustainability of
imported solid biofuels; an increase in forest area; a reduction in the emissions
related to forest soils, especially on drained peatlands; and a reduction in land take
to less than 30 ha day−1. The forest-based sector in Germany can contribute to cli-
mate mitigation via three channels––forest sinks, substitution and storage (in wood
products). Given this, it is important to consider how these channels could be used
to increasingly contribute to climate mitigation, as well as simultaneously adapting
the forests to the changing climate.
Here, we address the issues introduced above, starting with an outline of the
main impacts of climate change on German forests, including the effects of
12 Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Germany 199
Table 12.1 Overview of the forest sector in Germany

Forest resources
Area 11.42 million ha
Growing stock 336 m3 ha−1
Carbon storage 1.2 billion t C
Species 25% Norway spruce, 22% scots pine, 15% European beech, 10% oak, 20%
composition other broadleaves, 3% other conifers
Ownership
Private 50%
State 30%
Community 20%
Economic contribution
Gross added €34.3 billion in 2017
value
Employment 1 million people
Companies 121,900 companies
Sources: Bundeswaldinventur (BWI 2012), Clusterstatistik Forst und Holz (Becher 2016)
changing precipitation regimes, temperatures and increased disturbance activity.

Subsequently, we employ a simulation-optimisation model to assess the potential
mitigation of German forests under climate change up to the end of the century,
using a process-based model. We further discuss climate adaptation approaches and
the options available to deal with the impacts of climate change. Finally, we outline
future measures for the forest sector in Germany that will increase its climate-
mitigation potential while observing the need to adapt forests to future climatic
conditions.
12.2 Impacts of Climate Change
Climate change and its impacts on forests has been an important topic for practitio-
ners and scientists for more than two decades. Due to the federal system in Germany,
however, a consistent and unified strategy for the whole country has never been
implemented. Instead, the different states (i.e. Bundesländer) have come up with
individual approaches to deal with the ever-increasing, mostly negative impacts of
climate change on forests, such as the biotic and abiotic disturbances that have, in
recent years, reached critical levels across the whole country (see below).
Bolte et al. (2009) analysed the need and strategies for forest management mea-
sures to enhance adaptation to climate change in the German states. The important
role of increasing biotic threats has been acknowledged by all stakeholders. Only
slight differences have been found regarding tree species’ adaptive potential to cli-
mate change, with Norway spruce expected to have a low adaptive potential, while
introduced species, such as Douglas fir and red oak, have been assumed to be more
adaptive. Several native species, such as European beech, have been considered as
being quite tolerant in the face of climate change effects. The most obvious differ-
ences detected were regarding adaptation strategies. While some states have pre-
ferred active adaptation (e.g. forest transformation aimed at replacing sensitive tree
species), others have come out more in favour of a combination of active adaptation
and risk minimisation strategies (e.g. by establishing tree species mixtures). Passive
adaptation has predominantly been a less-preferred option.
Since Bolte et al.’s (2009) assessment, the situation in Germany’s forests has––
similarly to the rest of Europe––dramatically changed. A series of storms, extreme
drought events and bark-beetle attacks, in addition to forest fires in 2018–2020,
have led to the greatest amount of forest damage in Germany since World War
II. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMEL) has esti-
mated that, in 2018–2020, around 180 million m3 of wood have been damaged, and
an area of 285,000 ha has had to be reforested (BMEL 2020/Internet source no. 3).
Most of the damage is directly associated with the impacts of climate change.
Norway spruce and Scots pine are the tree species that have been most affected, but
native species, such as European beech and silver fir, have also exhibited severe
problems. This casts doubt on the hypothesis that a more ‘natural’ forest composi-
tion, in terms of species, would significantly increase the resistance and resilience
of forests in Germany under climate change. In 2020, the German government
assigned the record sum of almost €550 million to support forest owners in dealing
with the damage. Discussion on how to best use these funds is ongoing.
12.3 Economic Implications and the Potential

for Climate-Change Mitigation
12.3.1 Economic Costs
Hanewinkel et al. (2010) calculated the economic effects of a predicted climate-

change-induced shift from Norway spruce to European beech in a forest area of 1.3
million ha in southwestern Germany. The predicted shift led to a reduction in the
potential area of Norway spruce by between 190,000 and 860,000 ha. The financial
effect of this reduction on the land expectation value was estimated to be between
€690 million and €3.1 billion. Using a similar methodological approach (see
Hanewinkel et al. 2013), the total loss in German forest area (11 million ha) would
equate to around €11 billion. This figure is, of course, subject to considerable uncer-
tainty, yet it shows that the economic impacts of climate change on forests can be
severe. In Germany, the timber industry relies, to a large degree, on coniferous spe-
cies. These tree species are especially vulnerable to climate change, suggesting that
the forest industry may be at significant risk in the future.
Bösch et al. (2017, 2019) assessed the costs and carbon sequestration potential of
selected forest management measures in Germany, including the effects on the
harvested-wood products pool, within a framework that accounted for both the
financial impacts on the downstream industries and those on the values of non-
market goods and forest services. They showed that these costs could amount to
several billion euros per year, and that the cost-effectiveness could be very low. That
is, the abatement costs per ton of CO2 may be very high due to the high environmen-
tal costs.
12.3.2 Potential for Mitigation
Germany’s forests are considered to be an important part in the climate-change miti-

gation strategy of the country. However, similarly to the forests in the EU (Nabuurs
et al. 2017), their potential in that respect is still underused.
According to Wissenschaftlicher Beirat (2016), the annual potential of forests in
Germany to mitigate greenhouse gases through sequestration and the substitution
effects of wood products is estimated to be 127 Mt. CO2eq. This is equal to 16% of
Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 (805 Mt. CO2eq.), a figure that is
slightly higher than the one reported by Nabuurs et al. (2017) for the EU. Indeed,
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat (2016) considered forests to be one of the most efficient
terrestrial sinks in Germany.
Here, we employed a simulation-optimisation model, developed by Yousefpour
et al. (2018), to assess the potential for increasing carbon sequestration in German
forests along the lines of the CSF approach. We searched for optimal combinations
of forest profitability (in terms of the net present value [NPV] of harvestings) and
carbon sequestration in situ. We applied the approach to Germany under different
climate-change scenarios, using a process-based forest-growth model to forecast
future sequestration potential up to the end of the century. Subsequently, we identi-
fied management regimes that could realise these optimal combinations and assess
the costs related to carbon sequestration. A central aspect of this analysis and CSF
is the allocation of climate-mitigation actions to areas with simultaneously high
sequestration potential and low opportunity costs, thereby increasing the efficiency
of forestland use. In this sense, we also selected the species best suited for climate-
mitigation actions. To this end, carbon sequestration was discounted in order to
consider the urgency of the climate-mitigation actions using a 2% discount rate.
Consequently, the carbon sequestration is expressed as present tons equivalent
(PTE), meaning that 100 t of C sequestered 10 years in the future would represent
82 PTE. Wood-harvesting revenues were discounted using a 0.54% interest rate
(Yousefpour et al. 2018).
As expected, forest profitability and carbon sequestration displayed a trade-off,
since higher levels of carbon storage in the forests resulted in a decrease in wood
utilisation and a reduction in harvesting revenues (Fig. 12.1). Therefore, forest own-
ers applying climate-mitigation-oriented management would lose stumpage income
(i.e. incur opportunity costs), which depends on the profitability of forest stands and
their species composition. Figure 12.1a illustrates the total cost of generating
Fig. 12.1 Results of the multi-objective optimisation model for balancing forest profitability and
carbon sequestration for the most abundant tree species in Germany. (a) Total cost incurred to
increase carbon-sequestration (in PTE) levels in situ for the different species analysed. (b) Levels
of carbon sequestration attained with different preferences for carbon sequestration over forest
profitability. (c) Marginal cost curve for increasing carbon sequestration (i.e. the carbon supply
curve). (d) Allocated sequestration potential for each species with increasing carbon price
additional carbon sequestration, in terms of NPV, compared to the baseline. For

example, an additional sequestration of 2.5 PTE of C ha−1 year−1 would require a
compensation to forest owners in the range of €15–30 thousand ha−1, with highest
compensation required for oak and spruce forests. Beech and pine stands had the
lowest compensation costs of about €15 thousand ha−1. These patterns were main-
tained in the carbon supply curve for each species (Fig. 12.1c), which indicates the
amount of increase in carbon sequestration that owners would be willing to adopt at
different compensation levels (i.e. the carbon price), with the maximum compensa-
tion ranging from €100 to €239 PTE−1 for beech and oak stands, respectively.
Realisation of the maximum sequestration potential in Germany’s forests may
increase the carbon uptake nearly threefold compared to the baseline management
(Fig. 12.1b). Similarly to the supply function and total cost, different species dis-
played varying sequestration potential. This resulted from both the total areal share
of the species and the biological potential (i.e. the carbon sequestration rates).
Taking into account the maximum sequestration potential, spruce represented 36%
of the total sequestration share, followed by pine (25%), beech (23%) and oak
(16%) stands. Spruce stands had the largest share of forest area and growth rates,
leading to higher sequestration levels. Despite the similar areal coverage, pine
stands produced a smaller contribution, resulting from the lower growth rates of this
species and the typically poorer sites it occupies, predominantly in sandy soils,
which also have lower carbon storage capacity.
Considering that different species display diverging potentials to deliver ecosys-
tem services, integrative approaches are required to ensure an efficient use of forest
resources (WBGU 2020). For example, the promotion of mixed stands can balance
the trade-offs related to production and climate-mitigation goals, as well as increase
their resilience to disturbances and reduce the risks of catastrophic carbon losses
(Jactel et al. 2017).
Figure 12.1d shows the share of the sequestration capacity realised with increas-
ing compensation levels, up to the maximum potential. Hence, an earlier increase in
carbon sequestration indicates a higher suitability of the species for increasing car-
bon sequestration. We found that pine and beech stands were preferable for mitiga-
tion actions, with a full allocation of the forests to carbon storage from compensations
above €100 PTE−1, and a slightly better suitability of pine stands. Conversely, spruce
and oak stands were fully allocated to carbon sequestration actions only under high
compensation payments of above €189 PTE−1 for the former and €228 PTE−1 for
the latter.
The carbon sequestration levels computed here amounted to 4–11% of the coun-
try’s carbon emissions in 2019–805 Mt. CO2 (or approximately 8–23% if no carbon
discounting is applied), which is compatible with previous estimates (Dunger et al.
2014). Therefore, forests may substantially contribute to the realisation of climate
targets in the country.
The Wissenschaftlicher Beirat (2016) concluded that, in the agriculture and for-
estry sectors, forests play the most important role in carbon sequestration. In the
package ‘moderate climate protection’, which predicts a mitigation effect of 65 Mt.
CO2eq./year, forests are expected to contribute 43% of the total (28 Mt. CO2eq.). In
the ‘ambitious climate protection’ case, forestry and HWPs contribute 56 Mt.
CO2eq. from a total of 130–135 Mt. CO2eq. Adding this to the actual contribution of
almost 130 Mt. from the forestry sector would make up for around 180 Mt. CO2,
thus amounting to an impact equal to 22% of the current level of yearly greenhouse
gas emissions.
The potential to improve the mitigation effect of Germany’s forests and the forest
sector is of the same magnitude as Nabuurs et al. (2017) estimated for the impact of
CSF measures on the whole of the EU (25%). However, it should be noted that the
simulation analysis for Germany has several limitations. First, the potential to
increase the forest area in Germany is naturally limited due to the high population
density (250 people/km2) and high pressure on land use for buildings and
infrastructure, especially around the urban areas. Second, Germany already has a
comparably high standing volume per hectare, limiting the increase in carbon in the
living biomass. An Öko-Institut (2018) study indicated that the standing volume in
Germany could be doubled, but we consider this to be unrealistic. Third, the poten-
tial to increase the standing volume by improved management through the conver-
sion of coppice forests into high forests is limited, as coppices play virtually no role
in management schemes in Germany. Fourth, Germany’s forests are under increas-
ing pressure from abiotic and biotic disturbances, as can be seen in the devastating
drought and bark-beetle damage from 2018 to 2020. Hence, a high accumulation of
biomass by CSF actions may increase the vulnerability of stands to windstorms and
drought occurrences (e.g. Temperli et al. 2020). Similarly, fuel accumulation in
unmanaged pine stands may pose the risk of wildfires, and extreme damage events
in spruce stands may trigger the occurrence of bark-beetle outbreaks. The occur-
rence of such disturbance events could thus hinder climate-mitigation actions (Seidl
et al. 2014).
12.4 The Role of Forest Products
The previous analysis only considered the role of forests in mitigation (and adapta-
tion), but wood products can also play a significant role in the mitigation potential
of the forest sector. Germany is a major producer of sawnwood and wood panels,
and both the carbon storage in wood products and the substitution of wood for
energy-intensive materials, especially in the construction sector, may contribute
substantially to climate targets.
Bösch et al. (2017) estimated that wood substitution effects were up to the same
order of magnitude––up to 18 Mt. CO2 year−1––as the forest carbon sink, depending
on the wood utilisation scenario. It should be noted, however, that an increase in the
mitigation potential associated with substitution effects was accompanied by a
decrease in the sequestration potential of the forests due to the higher levels of wood
removal.
Recent investments have been made in Germany to increase the production of
new biomaterials and products that can replace fossil-based products. For example,
UPM Biofuels has invested in a new biorefinery plant in the city of Leuna, with the
capacity to produce 220,000 t of biochemicals annually (UPM Biofuels 2020).
These biochemicals will enable a switch from fossil-based products to sustainable
alternatives over a range of end uses, such as plastics, textiles, cosmetics and indus-
trial applications. The plant is planned to start producing by the end of 2022. In
2020, the German government set out plans to accelerate its low-carbon transition
by investing €3.6 billion in projects that help to strengthen its bioeconomy and cre-
ate a market for bio-based products (https://biomarketinsights.com/germany-backs-
e3-6bn-plan-to-support-bioeconomy-and-bio-based-products/).
An increase in the utilisation of wood products and improvements in the steward-
ship of wood imports are also predicted in the national climate action plan. The
removal of barriers to the use of durable wood products (e.g. building regulations)
and further investment in research and development towards the creation of new
wood products are also being promoted, highlighting the importance of wood-based
materials in the country’s climate-mitigation portfolio. In addition, the WBGU
(2020) has recommended boosting the use of timber in construction. According to
the WBGU, timber from locally adapted, sustainable forestry offers effective pos-
sibilities for long-term carbon storage.
12.5 Nexus of Adaptation, Resilience and Mitigation: What

Is the Right Way Forward?
Currently, because of the severe damage being done to forests in Germany, a public
discussion has developed on how to manage forests under the impacts of climate
change and how best to adapt the forests and increase their resistance and resilience
to the changing environmental conditions. As this discussion has to do with the
optimal strategy for combining mitigation and adaptation, it directly touches
upon CSF.
It seems that two different groups have emerged, with fundamentally different
approaches and opinions on how to manage forests under climate change. One
approach, which you might call ‘passive adaptation’, is to keep the forests dense in
order to maintain a cooler inner climate, and aims at a spontaneous adaptation using
maximum natural processes, which opposes the classical forest management that
has been practised over decades. This approach is supported by a highly diverse
group, as well as certain specific regions (e.g. the Upper Rhine Valley). Some mem-
bers of this group have expressed their opinions in an open letter to the Minister of
Agriculture, thus putting pressure on politicians and bringing the case to a public
debate. The alternative approach to this is what you might call the ‘active adaptation
approach’, which aims at anticipating and adapting to the expected pressures posed
by climate change. For example, promoting mixed forest stands, including the
implementation of non-native species, and replanting large areas destroyed by
drought and consecutive bark-beetle attacks with more resilient forest composi-
tions. This active-adaptation approach has been supported by an official statement
from the Scientific Board for forest policy of the Ministry of Agriculture and another
official statement from the majority of German forest scientists (Deutscher Verband
Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten [DVFFA] 2019).
The CSF (Chap. 9) approach combines all forest-based-sector mitigation possi-
bilities (sink, substitution and storage) and adaption in a holistic way. Regarding
adaptation, we point to a generic concept that has recently been developed
(Yousefpour et al. 2017), which takes into account the cost efficiency (Fig. 12.2).
According to this, a business-as-usual (BAU) strategy may still be the optimal
choice if the cost of change (adaptation) exceeds the expected benefits. If the cli-
mate change impacts are low, a low-cost reactive adaptation may suffice. For scarce
Fig. 12.2 Schematic allocation of different adaptation strategies in terms of costs and benefits
under climate change. BAU business as usual
and valuable forest resources, especially under considerable climate change impacts,
a proactive and robust strategy would be more suitable. The robust strategy is a
more costly adaptation strategy, but it represents a better fit to the uncertainties
inherent in climate change, and guarantees the provision of ecosystem services
under all plausible climate-change scenarios.
Besides the importance of active adaptation, the Scientific Board of the Ministry
of Agriculture (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat 2016) has proposed a list of measures for
forestry and the forest sector to enhance their mitigation effect:
• Safeguard productive forests to sustainably use their potential for climate
protection.
• Plant adapted and productive tree species, especially drought-tolerant conifers
mixed with deciduous tree species.
• Increase the longevity of timber-based products and promote their cascade usage.
• Take into account climate protection effects when assigning protected areas in
forests.
• Guarantee the protection of forest soils.
• Consult with and supervise small and medium private and community forest
enterprises to reach climate protection goals.
• Communicate the positive climate protection services of forestry and the

enhancement of timber usage.
• Giving up forestry and the harvesting of timber is not seen as an appropriate
strategy for climate protection in the long run, although it may be an important
instrument for achieving specific goals in biodiversity conservation.
From the perspective of the scale of the impact, the greatest mitigation potential in
the forest-based sector would be achieved through:
• Changing the tree species composition in forestry production to generate more
stable and resilient forests, capable of producing multiple benefits simultane-
ously, such as climate mitigation, wood production and habitat protection. This
could even include an increase in coniferous species, but of course only mixed
with native deciduous species (long-term effectivity).
• Protecting moors, inside and outside of forests (long-term effectivity).
• Producing lignocellulose from agricultural production, such as from short-
rotation plantations (mid-term effectivity)
• Increasing the material usage of timber in long-lived timber products (long-term
effectivity).
The Scientific Board estimated that the cost of avoiding greenhouse gas emissions
in the forestry (and agricultural) sector will be dependent on the site and implemen-
tation of the measures, and that these are usually below €50/t CO2eq.
12.6 Conclusions: Mitigation and Adaptation

Go Hand in Hand
German forests are characterised by high standing volumes and productivity. They
could play an important role in the overall potential of the country to mitigate cli-
mate change. Their potential to take up greenhouse gas emissions is in the range of,
or even higher than, the average European forest. In addition, Germany is a major
producer of sawnwood and wood-based panels, which also offers potential for cli-
mate mitigation, in terms of substituting for fossil-based materials and products and
storing carbon in wood products.
On the other hand, climate change is already exerting severe economic, environ-
mental and social impacts on German forests and the forest-based sector, and this
trend is likely to continue and intensify in the future. There is a political debate tak-
ing place about how best to deal with this damage and minimise the risks in the
future, asking, for example, how best to optimise the mitigation potential of the
forests while at the same time adapting the forests to deal with ongoing climate
change. This situation calls for a very careful balancing of strategies and a holistic
approach, which the CSF framework can provide.
Our simulation indicated that the opportunity costs of using high-valued and
productive species, such as Norway spruce, for mitigation purposes (i.e. by the in-
situ accumulation of carbon) produces high opportunity costs, while species of less
value, such as European beech, would be better suited for this purpose. In order to
follow a systematic approach to addressing the challenges of combining mitigation
and adaptation, we propose a generic framework for adaptation that takes into
account the cost efficiency of all measures, and includes this in suggesting the most
efficient ways to increase the mitigation potential of the forests in Germany. Current
and emerging forest bioeconomy products also offer significant potential for the
future mitigation potential via substitution and carbon storage.
References
Becher, G (2016) Clusterstatistik Forst und Holz: Tabellen für das Bundesgebiet und die Länder
2000 bis 2014. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 85 p, Thünen Working
Paper 67, https://d-nb.info/1122831994
Bösch M, Elsässer P, Rock J, Rüter S, Weimar H, Dieter M (2017). Costs and carbon sequestration
potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany. For Policy Econ 78:88–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.005
Bösch M, Elsasser P, Rock J, Weimar H, Dieter M (2019). Extent and costs of forest-based cli-
mate change mitigation in Germany: accounting for substitution. Carbon Management
10(2):127–134
Bolte A, Eisenhauer D-R, Ehrhart H-P, Groß J, Hanewinkel M, Kölling C, Profft I, Rohde M,
Röhe P, Amereller K (2009) Klimawandel und Forstwirtschaft – Übereinstimmungen und
Unterschiede bei der Einschätzung der Anpassungsnotwendigkeiten und Anpassungsstrategien
der Bundesländer. (Climate change and forest management – accordances and differences
between the German states regarding assessments for needs and strategies towards forest adap-
tation). Landbauforschung VTI Agric For Res 4(59):269–278
Bundeswaldinventur (BWI) (2012) Die dritte Bundeswaldinventur. Inventur- und
Auswertemethoden, 124. https://www.bundeswaldinventur.de/fileadmin/SITE_MASTER/con-
tent/Downloads/BWI_Methodenband_web.pdf
Deutscher Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten (DVFFA) (2019) Neues Positionspapier:
Anpassung der Wälder an den Klimawandel. Thünen Institut, Braunschweig
Dunger K, Stümer W, Oehmichen K, Riedel T, Ziche D, Grüneberg E, Wellbrock N (2014)
Nationaler Inventarbericht Deutschland. Kapitel 7.2 Wälder. Umweltbundesamt (FEA). Clim
Chang 24:524–571
Hanewinkel M, Hummel S, Cullmann D (2010) Modelling and economic evaluation of forest
biome shifts under climate change in Southwest Germany. For Ecol Manag 259:710–719.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.08.021
Hanewinkel M, Cullmann DA, Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs G-J, Zimmermann NE (2013) Climate
change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat Clim Chang
3:203–207. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1687
Jactel H, Bauhus J, Boberg J, Bonal D, Castagneyrol B, Gardiner B, Gonzalez JR, Koricheva J,
Meurisse N, Brockerhoff EG (2017) Tree diversity drives forest stand resistance to natural
disturbances. Curr For Rep 3(3):223–243
8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Öko-Institut (2018) Waldvision Deutschland. Beschreibung von Methoden, Annahmen und
Ergebnissen – im Auftrag von Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.
de/files/publications/20180228-greenpeace-oekoinstitut-waldvision-methoden-ergebnisse.pdf.
Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe
and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4(9):806–810
Temperli C, Blattert C, Stadelmann G, Brändli UB, Thürig E (2020) Trade-offs between ecosystem
service provision and the predisposition to disturbances: a NFI-based scenario analysis. For
Ecosyst 7:1–17
UPM Biofuels (2020) The construction of UPM’s innovative biochemicals facility starts in Germany.
Press Release, 7 October 2020. https://www.upm.com/about-us/for-media/releases/2020/10/
the-construction-of-upms-innovative-biochemicals-facility-starts-in-germany/. Accessed 10
Jan 2021
Verkerk PJ, Costanza R, Hetemäki L, Kubiszewski I, Leskinen P, Nabuurs GJ, Potocnik M, Palahí
M (2020) Climate-smart forestry: the missing link. For Policy Econ 115:102164
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2020) Rethinking land in the Anthropocene:
from separation to integration. Summary. WBGU, Berlin
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlicher Verbraucherschutz
und Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Waldpolitik beim BMEL (2016) Klimaschutz in der Land- und
Forstwirtschaft sowie den nachgelagerten Bereichen Ernährung und Holzverwendung.
Gutachten, Berlin
Yousefpour R, Augustynczik ALD, Hanewinkel M (2017) Pertinence of reactive, active and robust
adaptation strategies in forest management under climate change. Ann For Sci 74:40. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13595-017-0640-3
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18778-w
Internet Sources
http://www.dvffa.de/system/files/files_site/Waldanpassung_Positionspapier%20des%20
DVFFA_09_2019.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2020
https://bwi.info/. Accessed 12 Oct 2020
https://bwi.info/?inv=THG2017. Accessed 13 Oct 2020
https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/wald/wald-in-deutschland/wald-trockenheit-klimawandel.html.
Accessed 13 Oct 2020
https://www.bundesbuergerinitiative-waldschutz.de/unsere-positionen/offener-brief-an-bm-
kl%C3%B6ckner/. Accessed 19 Oct 2020
https://www.upm.com/about-us/for-media/releases/2020/01/upm-invests-in-next-generation-
biochemicals-to-drive-a-switch-from-fossil-raw-materials-to-sustainable-solutions/. Accessed
11 Sep 2020
VTI. https://www.thuenen.de/. Accessed 16 Oct 2020
Chapter 13
Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Spain
Elena Górriz-Mifsud, Aitor Ameztegui, Jose Ramón González,

and Antoni Trasobares
Abstract In Spain, 55% of land area is covered by forests and other woodlands.
Broadleaves occupy a predominant position (56%), followed by conifers (37%) and
mixed stands (7%). Forest are distributed among the Atlantic (north-western Iberian
rim), Mediterranean (rest of the peninsula including the Balearic Islands) and
Macaronesian (Canary Islands) climate zones. Spanish woodlands provide a multi-
plicity of provisioning ecosystem services, such as, wood, cork, pine nuts, mush-
rooms and truffles. In terms of habitat services, biodiversity is highly relevant.
Cultural services are mainly recreational and tourism, the latter being a crucial eco-
nomic sector in Spain (including rural and ecotourism). Regulatory services, such
as erosion control, water availability, flood and wildfire risk reduction, are of such
great importance that related forest zoning and consequent legislation were estab-
lished already in the eighteenth century. Climate change in Southern Europe is fore-
cast to involve an increase in temperature, reduction in precipitation and increase in
aridity. As a result, the risks for natural disturbances are expected to increase. Of
these, forest fires usually have the greatest impact on ecosystems in Spain. In
2010–2019, the average annual forest surface area affected by fire was 95,065 ha.
The combination of extreme climatic conditions (drought, wind) and the large pro-
portion of unmanaged forests presents a big challenge for the future. Erosion is
another relevant risk. In the case of fire, mitigation strategies should combine modi-
fication of the land use at the landscape level, in order to generate mosaics that will
create barriers to the spread of large fires, along with stand-level prevention mea-
sures to either slow the spread of surface fires or, more importantly, impede the
possibility of fire crowning or disrupt its spread. Similarly, forest management can
play a major role in mitigating the impact of drought on a forest. According to the
land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting, Spanish forests
E. Górriz-Mifsud (*) · J. R. González · A. Trasobares

The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Solsona, Spain
A. Ameztegui
The Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Solsona, Spain
University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain

212 E. Górriz-Mifsud et al.
absorbed 11% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. Investments in climate-
smart forestry provide opportunities for using all the different parts of the Spanish
forest-based sector for climate mitigation––forest sinks, the substitution of wood
raw materials and products for fossil materials, and the storage of carbon in wood
products. Moreover, this approach simultaneously helps to advance the adaptation
of the forest to changing climate and to build forest resilience.
Keywords Mediterranean forest · Wildfires · Forest bioeconomy · Non-wood

forest products · Resilient landscapes · Unmanaged forests
13.1 Introduction to Spanish Forests and Their Utilisation
As in many other southern European regions, the land cover of Spain has changed
considerably in the last century. The abandonment of a substantial proportion of
rural activities in the primary sector since the 1960s has led to a progressive, spon-
taneous afforestation of many parcels. Consequently, Spain today has 55% of its
land area covered by forests and other woodlands (Ministerio para la Transición
Ecológica [MITECO] 2018). Broadleaves occupy a predominant position (56%),
followed by conifers (37%) and mixed stands (7%) (Fig. 13.1). The most wide-
spread forest formations are open forest (the dehesas), typically used for agrofor-
estry, followed by Mediterranean oak (chiefly Quercus ilex) and pine
Fig. 13.1 Forest cover map of Spain. (Source: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y
Marino, 2008)
13 Climate-Smart Forestry Case Study: Spain 213
(chiefly Aleppo pine). However, Pinus pinaster and Pinus sylvestris are the most
important tree species in terms of timber volume. The rich ecosystem diversity is
reflected in the more than 20 dominant tree species, which are distributed among the
Atlantic (north-western Iberian rim), Mediterranean (rest of the peninsula including
the Balearic Islands) and Macaronesian (Canary Islands) climate zones.
There is a large potential for increasing the use of domestic wood in Spain. Far
from the typical European harvest rates, only one-third of the annual growing stock
in Spain is harvested (Fig. 13.2) (Montero and Serrada 2013). While Spanish citi-
zens tend to only consume small amounts of wood (0.8 m3/inhabitant/year – about
half that of Central Europe and well below what Northern European countries con-
sume), the aggregated annual timber consumption is almost double the domestic
harvest. This means that, despite the available timber stock, over half of the demand
needs to be covered by imported wood. The harvest intensity, however, varies con-
siderably among autonomous communities, ranging from 10 to 30% in most
Mediterranean regions, up to 60–70% in the Atlantic northern and north-western
regions (with a maximum of 88% in Galicia).
Highly fragmented private parcels constitute most of the forest land (MITECO
2018), with more than 99% occupying less than 10 ha. Despite the clear manage-
ment challenges this situation implies, over 80% of the wood harvest takes place on
Fig. 13.2 Key Spanish forest and forestry data. (Source: Author elaboration based on MITECO
2018, Montero and Serrada 2013)
privately owned land, indicating that most productive forests (Eucalyptus, Pinus
radiata, both of which are introduced species) tend to be owned by family forest
owners. Only 18% of the forested land is subject to a management plan
(MITECO 2018).
Beyond timber and fuelwood, Spanish forests also produce relevant non-timber
forest products such as cork, pine nuts, chestnuts, resin, black truffles and wild
mushrooms. Their value and markets are often imperfectly captured by the trade
statistics, as are other ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity conservation, water pro-
vision, amenities, carbon sequestration). Of the Spanish forests, 41% are nature-
protection areas.
13.2 Impacts of Climate Change in Spanish Forests
13.2.1 Climate Change and Spanish Forests
Climate change in Southern Europe, and in Catalonia (north-eastern Spain) in par-

ticular, is forecast to involve an increase in temperature, reduction in precipitation
and increase in aridity. Based on recent forest simulation studies (Trasobares et al.
2022; Morán-Ordóñez et al. 2020), the average annual mean temperature is pro-
jected to increase in Catalonia by 1.7–4.2 °C in this century, under Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 (see Chap. 3). Consequently, climate
change is expected to impact Spanish forests in several ways: (i) by decreasing
water availability due to increased evapotranspiration due to the temperature
increase; (ii) by increasing wildfire virulence as a result of reduced relative air
humidity and increased wind speeds; (iii) by intensifying downpours, and increas-
ing torrentiality and erosion-risk, especially in south-eastern Iberia and the Canary
Islands, intimately linked to desertification; (iv) by increasing the frequency of wind
storms, with stronger winds causing structural tree damage; (v) by expanding pest
and disease areas and/or active periods due to reduced cold weather; and (vi) by
modifying the phenology and physiology of plants and animals, with additional
effects on biomass growth (Serrada Hierro et al. 2011). Altogether, these impacts
will likely affect the current composition of forest species, as well as the provision
of ecosystem services, while increasing forest risks.
13.2.2 Forest Species Composition
Climate change projections predict a significant contraction of the distribution of

most mesic species in the Iberian Peninsula by 2100, but for widespread species in
the Mediterranean Basin, the impact will be lessened (Lloret et al. 2013). In the
mid-term (by 2040), in monospecific Catalan forests (Gil-Tena et al. 2019), a
temperature increase of 1.2 °C (with a concomitant reduction in precipitation) may

entail risk for Pinus nigra, P. sylvestris, P. uncinata, Fagus sylvatica and Quercus
pubescens, while other tree species, such as Pinus halepensis, may have a lower
risk. Forest stands in wetter and mountainous climatic sub-regions will attract
higher risk than drier sub-regions, where Pinus halepensis prevails. This climatic
risk will endanger the stand suitability of tree species that are less tolerant of drought
conditions (i.e. causing a shift in tree species) and/or that have lower growth rates
and a greater vulnerability to biotic hazards. Tree species dynamics are already
showing rapid species shifts from conifers towards broadleaves (Vayreda et al.
2016), partly due to climatic variation, but also due to the legacy of human land use,
mainly agricultural abandonment and reduced forest management intensity (e.g.
coppicing for fuelwood). In some areas, tree species that used to be secondary are
starting to become predominant. These changes also have economic consequences
because the tree species that are becoming more common tend to have lower eco-
nomic value in the markets.
13.2.3 Provisioning of Wood and Other Ecosystem Services
Spanish woodlands provide a multiplicity of ecosystem services (i.e. products),

wood being the most relevant, followed by cork, pine nuts, mushrooms and truffles.
In terms of habitat services, biodiversity is highly relevant. Cultural services are
mainly recreational and tourism, the latter being a crucial economic sector in Spain
(including rural and ecotourism). Regulatory services, such as erosion control,
water availability, flood and wildfire risk reduction, are of such great importance
that related forest zoning (Montes de Utilidad Pública) and consequent legislation
were established as far back as the eighteenth century, and are still largely valid.
For some regions, in the short term, climate change may cause an increase in CO2
sequestration and forest biomass productivity, such as in areas where water avail-
ability does not restrict growth, due to an increase in the vegetative period; this
would benefit intensive silviculture (Serrada Hierro et al. 2011). On the other hand,
a climate-sensitive forest scenario analysis conducted by Nabuurs et al. (2018),
Morán-Ordóñez et al. (2020) and Trasobares et al. (2022) in north-eastern Spain
indicated that, for the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, climate change is expected
to lead to denser forests with smaller tree diameter sizes, higher mortality rates and
lower volume growth, and with a significantly greater risk of forest fires (see below).
Morán-Ordóñez et al. (2020) found that the RCP8.5 scenario resulted in a decrease
in all ecosystem services for all pine forests. The use of a BAU scenario with low-
intensity harvesting resulted in the greatest soil erosion mitigation and CO2storage,
but predicted lower (blue) water provision. Pardos et al. (2017) determined that, for
Scots pine and Pyrenean oak forests in Valsaín (central Spain), wood production
would decrease from 2060 onwards using the BAU. Nabuurs et al. (2018) and
Trasobares et al. (2022) showed that the balance in net carbon emissions (also tak-
ing into account the life span of wood products, the substitution of fossil-based
products, etc.) improved in management scenarios where climate-smart forestry

and forest bioeconomy strategies were followed; that is, an increase in the managed
area, improved silvicultural methods and incentivising the demand for construction
timber in the medium term (2040–2050 onwards), with improved fire-risk preven-
tion, drought and blue water provision in the shorter term.
The environmental conditions for cork oak have been predicted to decrease mod-
erately in Andalucía under climate change. The risk will be more pronounced in the
cork oaks planted in 1993–2000 as part of the EU’s Rural Development Programme
because many of these forests are located outside the optimal locations for these
trees (Duque-Lazo et al. 2018a). Wild mushroom productivity may also be highly
climate-dependent, with the extension of summer-like weather into the fruiting sea-
son (i.e. autumn) expected to diminish production. Surprisingly, Karavani et al.
(2018a, b) predicted an increase in mushroom yield in pine forests in Catalonia
under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 during the twenty-first century. The autumn precipita-
tion and soil moisture are expected to remain more or less stable (or even to increase
slightly) during the fruiting season in 2016–2100, although temperatures are
expected to increase compared to 2008–2015. This would mean the mushroom
fruiting season would extend towards winter. Herrero et al. (2019) found consistent
wild mushroom yields for Pinus pinaster in Castilla-y-León. Truffle productivity is
also expected to shift under climate change, leading to lower-market-value species
(summer truffles) becoming dominant relative to the current situation (Büntgen
et al. 2012). Thomas and Büntgen (2019) also predicted a reduction in black truffle
productivity in Spain due to climate change. Under RCP4.5, there could be an 88%
harvest reduction due to increased summer temperatures and a 15.6% harvest reduc-
tion due to reduced summer precipitation. Under RCP8.5, there would be a total
collapse in production. These effects could be at least partially overcome by the
increased use of irrigation in specialised plantations.
Under climate change, Pinus pinea forests would have reduced pine nut yields
(Pardos et al. 2015). Given that these forests are typically managed for pine cone
productivity, future scenarios call for combining pine nuts with timber production.
In terms of resin, the impact of climate change is still uncertain due to a lack of
impact studies. However, based on our current understanding, a reduction in the
tapping season is expected during the warmest months (June–September)
(Rodríguez-García et al. 2015). Similarly, in years with a rainy summer and/or dry
spring, a slightly longer tapping season might result, as resin yield increases after
such events.
13.3 Forest Disturbances
13.3.1 Wildfires
The risks for abiotic (forest fires, erosion, drought, storms, etc.) and biotic (insects,
disease) natural disturbances are expected to increase due to climate change (e.g.
Seidl et al. 2014). Of these, forest fires usually have the greatest impact on
ecosystems in Spain. In 2010–2019, the average annual forest surface area affected
by fire was 95,065 ha (MITECO 2021a). The combination of extreme climatic con-
ditions (drought, wind) and the large proportion of unmanaged forests presents a big
challenge for the future. Erosion is another relevant risk. Most Spanish forests
located on the steepest alpine and sub-alpine slopes are protected (Nabuurs
et al. 2018).
Under climate change, extreme fire-weather conditions that can lead to large and
catastrophic fires are expected to become more common (Piñol et al. 1998) as the
number of extreme dry periods increases. Climate-change scenarios indicate an
increase of 2–2.5 times the number of fires, 3.4–4.6 times the forest area burned,
and 3–3.9 times the wooded area burned (Vázquez De La Cueva et al. 2012). An
important aspect to consider is that the long-term impact on the vegetation or the
adaptation of plants to fire does not depend on single events, but on fire regimes––
that is, the fire characteristics for a given area over a certain period (Krebs et al.
2010). However, climate change is not the only factor that will modify the fire
regimes on the Iberian Peninsula; other factors will define the size, frequency and/
or severity of the fires (Moreno et al. 2014). Moreover, changes in the fire activity
have not been, and probably will not be, homogeneous over the Spanish territory.
Past observations (Moreno et al. 2014) and future predictions (Jiménez-Ruano et al.
2020) have indicated that, in north-eastern Spain, there has been a general increase
in fire activity both over an entire year and during the vegetative season, although
this tendency is expected to decrease in the medium term (2036). On the other hand,
in Spain overall, there is a trend towards fewer wildfires with lower intensities, and
a reduction in the area burnt (MAPA 2019). This decrease can be attributed to
improvements in, and expenditure on, fire suppression over the last few decades.
However, even though past observations and future forecasts seem relatively opti-
mistic, it is widely understood that the accumulation of fuel resulting from agricul-
tural abandonment (Pausas and Paula 2012), areas of past fire exclusion (Piñol et al.
2005) and the expected increase in the number of days subject to extreme fire
weather may lead to the unexpected occurrence of very large and catastrophic fires
(Costa et al. 2011).
13.3.2 Water Scarcity and Drought
Interactions between the multiple drivers of global change can have diverse effects
on the future condition of Mediterranean forests. Water scarcity will certainly be
one of the most important agents of forest dynamics and their provision of services
in the coming decades. The expected increase in evapotranspiration rates due to ris-
ing temperatures will come with a general reduction in water availability and greater
precipitation irregularity, leading to more frequent, intense and prolonged droughts
and hot spells. Many tree species in Spain will be particularly vulnerable to these
events, including Pinus sylvestris, Fagus sylvatica and Abies alba. Decline in
growth and increased die-back have already been reported in Pinus sylvestris
populations in north-eastern Spain (Martínez-Vilalta and Piñol 2002) and in the

southernmost populations of Abies alba in the Spanish Pyrenees (Macias et al.
2006). However, this phenomenon will not only affect the least-tolerant species–
drought-adapted species are also likely to suffer the consequences of increased
drought conditions. Drought has been linked to the general die-back of Quercus ilex
in south-western Spain known as ‘seca’, where weakened trees are more susceptible
to attack by Phytophthora (Sánchez-Salguero et al. 2013). It has also been reported
to cause growth decline in several pine species in south-eastern Spain (Sánchez-
Salguero et al. 2012). We can expect a general reduction in site productivity in the
medium and long terms, particularly in species or populations growing in water-
limited environments, which includes most Iberian forests (Coll et al. 2021).
More importantly, we can expect different responses to disturbances across for-
est types. Evergreen gymnosperms growing in drought-prone areas have exhibited
low resistance to, but faster recovery after, drought events compared to trees from
temperate regions (Gazol et al. 2018). Therefore, the response of vegetation to
changes in climate may be different as droughts become more intense and/or more
frequent. This may ultimately affect forest compositions and species distributions.
In the driest areas, desertification might advance and become a major problem
(Karavani et al. 2018a).
Forest structure will also play a fundamental role in the response of the vegeta-
tion to drought, with dense, unmanaged forests being generally more vulnerable
(Lindner and Calama 2013). Forests in dry areas are able to accommodate fewer
trees per hectare for a given average size, and reduced stand density is known to
increase drought resistance in several species (Martín-Benito et al. 2010). Earlier,
more-intense thinnings have been proposed as a fundamental method in the toolkit
of forest managers to help forests adapt to climate change (Vilà-Cabrera et al. 2018;
Coll et al. 2021), constituting the basis of ‘ecohydrological’ or ‘hydrology-oriented’
silviculture (del Campo et al. 2017). Several modelling exercises have indeed sug-
gested that intense reductions in stand density can help to reduce the impacts of
climate change on stress-related mortality, particularly on xeric sites (Ameztegui
et al. 2017).
13.3.3 Pests and Diseases
Climate change may affect the distribution of pathogens and hosts. Among the most
relevant pests, the pine processionary moth causes most concern for conifer forests
in Spain. It is expanding northwards and towards higher elevations due to milder
winter conditions (Roques et al. 2015)––a trend shared across western Mediterranean
Europe. This expansion may eventually accelerate the process of natural succession
(i.e. the replacement of conifers by Quercus species), although higher rates of forest
compositional change may be expected if more-destructive pest outbreaks than pine
processionary moth occur (Gil-Tena et al. 2019). Imported pests, such as the pine
nematode, entail additional relevant threats. Haran et al. (2015) indicated an
expected expansion of the pine nematode towards higher altitudes, with the proba-
bility of it spreading into the Pyrenees, towards France and the rest of Europe.
In terms of disease, the pine pitch canker that affects Pinus pinaster and
Phytophthora cynnamomi that mainly affects oaks can be highlighted. Serra-Varela
et al. (2017) found that almost the entire Spanish distribution of Pinus pinaster will
face an abiotic-driven exposure to pitch canker (due to the predicted increase in
drought events under climate change), while the north-western edge of the Iberian
Peninsula is predicted to face reduced exposure. Duque-Lazo et al. (2018b) indi-
cated that oak decline provoked by Phytophthora cynnamomi may be reduced in
Andalusian forests (southern Spain) until 2040, although the suitability of the habi-
tat is predicted to increase after that.
13.4 Nexus for Adaptation and Resilience,

and the Mitigation of Climate Change
13.4.1 Adaptation to Climate Change and Risk Management
Two of the most significant threats to Spanish forests, where the risk might be
heightened in the future, are drought and fire. In the case of fire, it is widely recog-
nised that mitigation strategies must be implemented at different scales (Gil-Tena
et al. 2019). These should combine modification of the land use at the landscape
level, in order to generate mosaics that will create barriers to the spread of large
fires, along with stand-level prevention measures to either slow the spread of surface
fires or, more importantly, impede the possibility of fire crowning or disrupt its
spread (Loepfe et al. 2012). When implementing forest management interventions,
it has been demonstrated that modifying the structure and composition of the forest
at the stand level has an impact by reducing fire occurrence and damage (González
et al. 2007). Consequently, specific management methods are being applied in cer-
tain regions of Spain (Piqué et al. 2017). It is clear that integrating these methods
into the landscape, considering the spatial component of fire spread, has a much
greater chance of mitigating the negative impacts of forest fires, or will facilitate the
efficiency of suppression efforts, if specific measures are applied to high-priority
areas (Gonzalez-Olabarria et al. 2019). Similarly, forest management can play a
major role in mitigating the impact of drought on a forest (Martínez-Vilalta et al.
2012). Many of the management options considered to be appropriate for reducing
competition for water resources (e.g. thinning) or for increasing the efficiency of the
uptake and use of existing water (i.e. by favouring certain species admixtures based
on their functional traits) (De Cáceres et al. 2021) may also be considered beneficial
for reducing fire risk. The National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change
2021–2031 actually considers these risks and mitigation goals as part of a broad,
intersectoral plan (MITECO 2021b) and more-detailed forest-accountability plan
(MITECO 2018).
13.4.2 The Role of Spanish Forests and Wood Products

in Climate Change Mitigation
According to the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting,
Spanish forests absorbed 11% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
2019 – 314.529 Kt CO2 eq. Table 13.1 details the impact of different forest sub-
sector activities. The substitution of forest biomass for fossil-based energy in Spain
is also important to take into account in this balance because of its potential and low
cost (Turrado Fernández et al. 2016). The current energy consumption derived from
biomass is close to 4 Mtoe. The 2030 bioenergy target of the National Integrated
Plan for Energy and Climate indicates a need for an additional 1.6 Mtoe year−1 of
electricity generation and 0.41 Mtoe year−1 for heating (MITECO 2020). These
targets are perfectly achievable considering the estimated Spanish potential biomass
for energy of 88.7 Mtoe year−1 (or 17.3 Mtoe year−1 for heating), with the portion
coming from forests being 33.8 Mtoe year−1 (or 5.8 Mtoe year−1 for heating). This
includes lumber industry residues, roundwood and other woody biomass from for-
estlands. Notably, the above figures do not take into account other potential sources,
such as woody energy crops, and residues and side streams of the pulp and paper
industry (Paredes-Sánchez et al. 2019). The use of timber in housing and construc-
tion (e.g. cross-laminated timber, plywood and sawn wood) is gaining more impor-
tance, although it is still far from reaching its potential use. Wood can store carbon
for decades in buildings and can replace the use of fossil-intensive materials, such
Table 13.1 Contribution of Spanish forests and wood products to the GHG balance in 2019, and
the forest reference levels (FRLs)
IPCC LULUCF sub-classes GHG (Kt CO2 eq.) FRL 2021–2025
Forestland remaining as forestland −29372.48 −29,303
Land converted to forestland 123.84
Cropland converted to forestland −2386.28
Grassland converted to forestland −1417.93
Wetlands converted to forestland −2.31
Settlements converted to forestland 0.00
Other land converted to forestland −46.43
Forestland converted to cropland 91.31
Forestland converted to grassland 292.00
Forestland converted to settlements 201.71
Forestland converted to other land 0.00
Harvested wood products −2191.22 −1732
Wildfires (N2O, CH4) Not available 330
Prescribed burning (N2O, CH4) Not available 2
Forest contribution to the 2019 GHG −34707.78 −30,703
balance
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Source: MITECO (2018, 2021a)
as steel and concrete, therefore offering opportunities for climate mitigation in one
of the most CO2-intensive industry sectors.
Investments in climate-smart forestry provide opportunities for using all the dif-
ferent parts of the Spanish forest-based sector for climate mitigation––forest sinks,
the substitution of wood raw materials and products for fossil materials, and the
storage of carbon in wood products (Nabuurs et al. 2018). Moreover, this approach
simultaneously helps to advance the adaptation of the forest to changing climate and
to build forest resilience. The potential of non-wood forest products as substitutes
for non-renewable materials has been poorly assessed so far. However, in terms of
cork, Sierra-Pérez et al. (2018) comprehensively assessed its life-cycle for the pur-
pose of building insulation. According to the study, using cork for insulation can
have a positive CO2 mitigation impact. The benefits are obvious when contrasted
with mainstream, inorganic fibrous materials. Similarly, PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) and ECOBILAN (2008) found that the production of cork stoppers emitted
less CO2 (1.53 g CO2/piece) than screw caps (37.17 g CO2/piece) and synthetic caps
(14.83 g CO2/piece). When also accounting for the offsetting effect resulting from
cork-oak forest management, cork stoppers become even more competitive
(−113.2 g CO2/piece).
13.4.3 Resilience of Spanish Forests
Many Mediterranean tree species have traits that give them the capacity to respond
to the most frequent disturbances in an area––most notably, wildfires and drought
events (response traits). However, because of the speed of current environmental
change, the occurrence and severity of most disturbances has increased in forests
across Europe (Senf and Seidl 2021). In the Mediterranean region, the severity,
frequency and size of burned forest areas has increased over the last few decades
(Turco et al. 2018), as have drought severity, heat waves and insect outbreaks
(Balzan et al. 2020). The increasing frequency, size and severity of these distur-
bances will, in many cases, be beyond historical norms, and forests will likely often
be overcome, particularly at the southern edges of their distributions (Vilà-Cabrera
et al. 2012).
The concern about forest responses to disturbances has made resilience a new
paradigm for researchers, managers and policy-makers. Considering resistance and
resilience as two related, but distinct, components of ecosystem responses to distur-
bances, the resistance–resilience framework can provide a good understanding of
post-disturbance forest dynamics (Sánchez-Pinillos et al. 2019), and may contribute
to guiding climate-smart forestry and adaptive silviculture. Sánchez-Pinillos et al.
(2016) developed the Persistence Index (PI) to assess the capacity of communities
to maintain their functions and services following disturbances. The PI is based on
the diversity, abundance and redundancy of response traits, under the assumption
that an ecosystem will be more resilient and resistant to disturbances if it contains a
greater share of species with a given set of traits that allow them to cope with
disturbances. The application of the PI to Iberian forests highlights the importance

of functional diversity rather than number of species as an indicator of forest resil-
ience (Gazol et al. 2018). It can be used to operationalise the concepts of resistance
and resilience in real-world management strategies, providing evidence for the
adaptive management of forest ecosystems. However, vulnerability to disturbances
can also vary along successional trajectories, which underscores the need to con-
sider the temporal dimension in risk management.
Species-specific interactions may be altered under climate change and, accord-
ing to the stress gradient hypothesis (Maestre et al. 2009), facilitative effects may
become more frequent. The role of shrubs as nurse vegetation for pine seedlings has
already been documented in semi-arid and arid Mediterranean regions (Gómez-
Aparicio et al. 2008), but also in sub-Mediterranean pine woods (Sánchez-Pinillos
et al. 2018). This role could become even more important in the future. The succes-
sion of disturbances may also impose a significant limitation on the resilience of
forest stands. For example, the regeneration of Pinus nigra after wildfire depends
both on the existence of nearby, unburned vegetation patches and on the climatic
conditions in the years following the fire (Sánchez-Pinillos et al. 2018). The succes-
sion of fires and droughts, therefore, could trigger massive failures in regeneration,
leading to a change in the ecosystem towards a greater dominance of oak. In the
driest areas, the combined effect of several disturbances is likely to exceed the
response capacity of the organisms, leading to the extinction of some species and
even the disappearance of vegetation cover, which introduces a high risk for soil
erosion, degradation and desertification.
13.5 Potential for a Forest-Based Bioeconomy in Spain
The Spanish forest sector accounted for 0.6% of the Gross Added Value in 2018, of
which 0.9% came from forestry works, 0.19% from the timber and cork industry
and 0.36% from the paper industry (INE 2021b). However, these figures do not
consider the added value generated by most of wildfire management activities,
hunting or forest foods (truffles, mushrooms, chestnuts, etc.), and therefore it clearly
underestimates the total value of the forest-based sector. In 2011–2019, the Spanish
forest sector employed about 130,000 people (INE 2021a).
Policies will be crucial for implementing a successful transition to a sustainable,
circular bioeconomy and in contributing to the EU Green Deal Objectives in the
coming decades. Policies such as the Next Generation Funds for COVID-19 recov-
ery are supporting these objectives. For example, the funds include initiatives for
increasing cross-laminated timber production, and the number of bioenergy plants
and biorefineries. Spain’s Bioeconomy Strategy 2015–2030 (Lainez et al. 2018) and
the Climate Change Law 7/2021 provide incentives for moving to carbon neutrality,
a necessary part of which will involve sustainable forest management and adapting
forests to the changing climate.
Using forest biomass to replace fossil raw materials and products––the root
cause of climate change––is essential. This implies increasing the use of forest bio-
mass in, for example, the construction, packaging and textile sectors, and also for
energy purposes, at least in the coming decade or two before other renewables (e.g.
hydrogen) become more available. However, in Spain, forest management is the
responsibility of the autonomous regions, and therefore it is crucial that they are
ready to make the necessary changes at the regional level. Despite the large expan-
sion of Spanish forestland in recent decades, the agricultural component of most
bioeconomic initiatives is also important, and so it is necessary to advance and
coordinate actions in both sectors. This is indeed being done, for example, in the
Catalan Bioeconomy Strategy (2021–2030), the Basque Roadmap towards a
Bioeconomy (2019), the Andalusian Circular Bioeconomy Strategy (2018), the
Galician Agenda for the Forest Industry (2018), the recently established Research
Centre for Rural Bioeconomy in Aragón, the CLAMBER project (Castilla–La
Mancha Bio-Economy Region), and the Plan for Boosting Agro-food Bioeconomy
in Castilla-y-León. The climate-smart forestry approach could play an important
role in achieving the objectives of these strategies in the coming decades.
Acknowledgements We thank Jonas Oliva for his review of the biotic risks. Part of this chapter
has been developed within the H2020 FIRE-RES project (Grant agreement ID: 101037419).
References
Ameztegui A, Cabon A, de Cáceres M, Coll L (2017) Managing stand density to enhance the adapt-
ability of scots pine stands to climate change: a modelling approach. Ecol Model 356:141–150
Balzan M, Hassoun A, Aroua N, Baldy V, Bou Dagher M, Branquinho C, Dutay JC, El Bour M,
Médail F, Mojtahid M, Morán-Ordóñez A, Roggero P, Rossi Heras S, Schatz B, Vogiatzakis
I, Zaimes G, Ziveri P (2020) Ecosystems. In: Cramer W, Guiot J, Marini K (eds) Climate
and environmental change in the Mediterranean Basin – current situation and risks for the
future. First Mediterranean assessment report. Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/
MAP, p 151
Büntgen U, Egli S, Camarero JJ, Fischer EM, Stobbe U, Kauserud H, Tegel W, Sproll L, Stenseth
NC (2012) Drought-induced decline in Mediterranean truffle harvest. Nat Clim Chang
2:827–829. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1733
Coll L, Ameztegui A, Calama R, Lucas-Borja ME (2021) Dynamics and management of western
Mediterranean pinewoods. In: Gidi N, Yagil O (eds) Pines and their mixed forest ecosystems in
the Mediterranean Basin. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
Costa P, Larrañaga A, Castellnou M, Miralles M, Kraus D (2011) Prevention of large wildfires
using the fire types concept. European Forest Institute. ISBN 978-84-694-1457-6
De Cáceres M, Mencuccini M, Martin-StPaul N, Limousin JM, Coll L, Poyatos R, Cabon A,
Granda V, Forner A, Valladares F, Martínez-Vilalta J (2021) Unravelling the effect of species
mixing on water use and drought stress in Mediterranean forests: a modelling approach. Agric
For Meteorol 296:108233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108233
del Campo AD, González-Sanchis M, Lidón A, García-Prats A, Lull C, Bautista I, Ruíz-Pérez G,
Francés F (2017) Ecohydrological-based forest management in semi-arid climate. In: Křeček
J, Haigh M, Hofer T, Kubin E, Promper C (eds) Ecosystem services of headwater catchments.
Springer, pp 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57946-7
Duque-Lazo J, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, Ruíz-Gómez FJ (2018a) Assessment of the future stability of

cork oak (Quercus suber L.) afforestation under climate change scenarios in Southwest Spain.
For Ecol Manag 409:444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.042
Duque-Lazo J, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, van Gils H, Groen TA (2018b) Forecasting oak decline
caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi in Andalusia: identification of priority areas for interven-
tion. For Ecol Manag 417:122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.02.045
Gazol A, Camarero JJ, Vicente-Serrano SM, Sánchez-Salguero R, Gutiérrez E, de Luis M,
Sangüesa-Barreda G, Novak K, Rozas V, Tíscar PA, Linares JC, Martín-Hernández N,
Martínez del Castillo E, Ribas M, García-González I, Silla F, Camisón A, Génova M, Olano
JM, Longares LA, Hevia A, Tomás-Burguera M, Galván JD (2018) Forest resilience to drought
varies across biomes. Glob Change Biol 24:2143–2158. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14082
Gil-Tena A, Morán-Ordóñez A, Comas L, Retana J, Vayreda J, Brotons L (2019) A quantitative
assessment of mid-term risks of global change on forests in Western Mediterranean Europe.
Reg Environ Chang 19(3):819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1437-0
Gómez-Aparicio L, Zamora R, Castro J, Hódar JA (2008) Facilitation of tree saplings by nurse
plants: microhabitat amelioration or protection against herbivores? J Veg Sci 19(2):161–172.
https://doi.org/10.3170/2008-8-18347
González JR, Trasobares A, Palahí M, Pukkala T (2007) Predicting stand damage and tree sur-
vival in burned forests in Catalonia (North-East Spain). Ann For Sci 64(7):733–742. https://
doi.org/10.1051/forest:2007053
Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Reynolds KM, Larrañaga A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Busquets E, Pique M
(2019) Strategic and tactical planning to improve suppression efforts against large forest fires
in the Catalonia region of Spain. For Ecol Manag 432:612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2018.09.039
Haran J, Roques A, Bernard A, Robinet C, Roux G (2015) Altitudinal barrier to the spread of an
invasive species: could the Pyrenean chain slow the natural spread of the pinewood nematode?
PLoS One 10(7):e0134126. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134126
Herrero C, Berraondo I, Bravo F, Pando V, Ordóñez C, Olaizola J, Martín-Pinto P, Oria de Rueda
JA (2019) Predicting mushroom productivity from long-term field-data series in Mediterranean
Pinus pinaster Ait. Forests in the context of climate change. Forests 10(3):1–18. https://doi.
org/10.3390/f10030206
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística) (2021a) Empleados por rama actividad. Encuesta de
Población Activa 2011–2020. https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=4128. Accessed 23
Apr 2021
INE (2021b) Valor Agregado Bruto de las CNAE 02 16 17. Contabilidad Nacional de España
2011–2018. Agregados por ramas de Actividad. https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=32449.
Accessed 10 Apr 2021
Jiménez-Ruano A, de la Riva Fernández J, Rodrigues M (2020) Fire regime dynamics in main-
land Spain. Part 2: a near-future prospective of fire activity. Sci Total Environ 705. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135842
Karavani A, Boer MM, Baudena M, Colinas C, Díaz-Sierra R, Pemán J, de Luis M, Enríquez-
de-
Salamanca Á, Resco de Dios V (2018a) Fire-induced deforestation in drought-prone
Mediterranean forests: drivers and unknowns from leaves to communities. Ecol Monogr
88(2):141–169
Karavani A, De Cáceres M, Martínez de Aragón J, Bonet JA (2018b) Effect of climatic and soil
moisture conditions on mushroom productivity and related ecosystem services in Mediterranean
pine stands facing climate change. Agric For Meteorol 248:432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agrformet.2017.10.024
Krebs P, Pezzatti GB, Mazzoleni S, Talbot LM, Conedera M (2010) Fire regime: history and
definition of a key concept in disturbance ecology. Theory Biosci 129(1):53–69. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12064-010-0082-z
Lainez M, González JM, Aguilar A, Vela C (2018) Spanish strategy on bioeconomy: towards a
knowledge based sustainable innovation. New Biotechnol 40:87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nbt.2017.05.006
Lindner M, Calama R (2013) Mediterranean forests need to adapt to climate change. In: Lucas-
Borja ME (ed), Forest Management of Mediterranean Forests under the new context of climate
change: building alternatives for the coming future. NOVA science Publisher, pp 13–28
Lloret F, Martinez-Vilalta J, Serra-Diaz JM, Ninyerola M (2013) Relationship between projected
changes in future climatic suitability and demographic and functional traits of forest tree spe-
cies in Spain. Clim Chang 120(1–2):449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0820-6
Loepfe L, Martinez-Vilalta J, Piñol J (2012) Management alternatives to offset climate change
effects on Mediterranean fire regimes in NE Spain. Clim Chang 115(3–4):693–707. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-012-0488-3
Macias M, Andreu L, Bosch O, Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E (2006) Increasing aridity is enhancing
silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) water stress in its south-western distribution limit. Clim Chang
79:289–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9071-0
Maestre FT, Callaway RM, Valladares F, Lortie CJ (2009) Refining the stress-gradient hypoth-
esis for competition and facilitation in plant communities. J Ecol 97(2):199–205. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01476.x
MAPA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación) (2019) Los Incendios Forestales en
España. Decenio 2006–2015. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/estadisticas/
incendios-decenio-2006-2015_tcm30-511095.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Martín-Benito D, del Río M, Heinrich I, Helle G, Cañellas I (2010) Response of climate-growth
relationships and water use efficiency to thinning in a Pinus nigra afforestation. For Ecol
Manag 259:967–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.001
Martínez-Vilalta J, Piñol J (2002) Drought-induced mortality and hydraulic architecture in pine
populations of the NE Iberian Peninsula. For Ecol Manag 161:247–256
Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F, Breshears DD (2012) Drought-induced forest decline: causes, scope
and implications. Biol Lett 8(5):689–691. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.1059
MITECO (2018) Plan de Contabilidad Forestal Nacional. Plan de contabilidad forestal nacio-
nal para España, incluyendo el nivel forestal de referencia 2021–2025. https://www.miteco.
gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/publicaciones/informes/nfap_es_tcm30-485874.pdf. Accessed 12
Apr 2021
MITECO (2020) Plan Nacional Integrado de Energía y Clima 2021–2030. https://www.miteco.
gob.es/es/prensa/pniec.aspx. Accessed 12 Apr 2021
MITECO (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico) (2021a) Incendios
forestales. Avance informativo del 1 de enero al 31 de diciembre de 2020. https://www.
mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/estadisticas/avanceinformativoa31dediciembre2020_tcm30-
132566.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2021
MITECO (2021b) Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático 2021–2030. https://www.
miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-c limatico/temas/impactos-v ulnerabilidad-y -a daptacion/plan-
nacional-adaptacion-cambio-climatico/default.aspx. Accessed 14 Apr 2021
MITECO (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica) (2018) Avance Anuario Estadística Forestal
2018. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/estadisticas/aef_2018_resumen_tcm30-
543072.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2021
Montero G, Serrada R (eds) (2013) La situación de los bosques y el sector forestal en España –
ISFE 2013. Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales
Morán-Ordóñez A, Ameztegui A, De Cáceres M (2020) Future trade-offs and synergies among
ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests under global change scenarios. Ecosyst Serv
45:101174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101174
Moreno MV, Conedera M, Chuvieco E, Pezzatti GB (2014) Fire regime changes and major driv-
ing forces in Spain from 1968 to 2010. Environ Sci Pol 37:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2013.08.005
Nabuurs G, Verkerk PJ, Schelhaas MJ, González Olabarria JR, Trasobares A, Cienciala E (2018)
Climate-smart forestry: mitigation impacts in three European regions. European Forest Institute
Pardos M, Calama R, Maroschek M, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2015) A model-based analy-
sis of climate change vulnerability of Pinus pinea stands under multiobjective manage-
ment in the Northern Plateau of Spain. Ann For Sci 72:1009–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13595-015-0520-7
Pardos M, Pérez S, Calama R, Alonso R, Lexer MJ (2017) Ecosystem service provision, man-
agement systems and climate change in Valsaín forest, Central Spain. Reg Environ Chang
17(1):17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0985-4
Paredes-Sánchez JP, López-Ochoa LM, López-González LM, Las-Heras-Casas J, Xiberta-Bernat
J (2019) Evolution and perspectives of the bioenergy applications in Spain. J Clean Prod
213:553–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.112
Pausas JG, Paula S (2012) Fuel shapes the fire-climate relationship: evidence from
Mediterranean ecosystems. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21(11):1074–1082. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2012.00769.x
Piñol J, Terradas J, Lloret F (1998) Climate warming, wildfire hazard, and wildfire occurrence in
coastal eastern Spain. Clim Chang 38(3):345–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005316632105
Piñol J, Beven K, Viegas DX (2005) Modelling the effect of fire-exclusion and prescribed fire on
wildfire size in Mediterranean ecosystems. Ecol Model 183:397–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2004.09.001
Piqué M, Vericat P, Beltrán M (2017) ORGEST: regional guidelines and silvicultural models for
sustainable forest management. For Syst 26(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2017262-10627
PwC/ECOBILAN (2008) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of Cork Stoppers versus
Aluminium and Plastic Closures. Analysis of the life cycle of Cork, Aluminium and Plastic Wine
Closures. https://www.amorim.com/xms/files/v1/Sustentabilidade/Casos_de_Estudo/2008_-_
LCA_Final.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2021
Rodríguez-García A, Antonio J, López R, Mutke S, Pinillos F, Gil L (2015) Influence of climate
variables on resin yield and secretory structures in tapped Pinus pinaster Ait. in Central Spain.
Agric For Meteorol 202:83–93
Roques A, Rousselet J, Avcı M, Avtzis DN, Basso A, Battisti A, Ben Jamaa ML, Bensidi A, Berardi
L, Berretima W, Branco M, Chakali G, Çota E, Dautbasic M, Delb H, El Alao El Fels MA,
El Mercht S, El Mokhefi M, Forster B, Garcia J, Georgiev G, Glavendekic MM, Goussard
F, Halbig P, Henke L, Hernández R, Hódar JA, Ipekdal K, Jurc M, Klimetzek D, Laparie M,
Larsson S, Mateus E, Matosevic D, Meier F, Mendel Z, Meurisse N, Mihajlovic L, Mirchev
P, Nasceski S, Nussbaumer C, Paiva MR, Papazova I, Pino J, Podlesnik J, Poirot J, Protasov
A, Rahim N, Sánchez Peña G, Santos H, Sauvard D, Schopf A, Simonato M, Tsankov G,
Wagenhoff E, Yart A, Zamora R, Zamoum M, Robinet C (2015) Climate warming and past and
present distribution of the processionary moths (Thaumetopoea spp.) in Europe, Asia Minor
and North Africa. In: Roques A (ed) Processionary moths and climate change: an update. Ed.
Quae, pp 81–162. ISBN 978-94-017-9339-1
Sánchez-Pinillos M, Coll L, De Cáceres M, Ameztegui A (2016) Assessing the persistence capac-
ity of communities facing natural disturbances on the basis of species response traits. Ecol
Indic 66:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.024
Sánchez-Pinillos M, Ameztegui A, Kitzberger T, Coll L (2018) Relative size to resprouters deter-
mines post-fire recruitment of non-serotinous pines. For Ecol Manag 429:300–307. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.07.009
Sánchez-Pinillos M, De Cáceres M, Ameztegui A, Coll L (2019) Temporal dimension of for-
est vulnerability to fire along successional trajectories. J Environ Manag 248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109301
Sánchez-Salguero R, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, Camarero JJ, Fernández-Cancio Á (2012) Selective
drought-induced decline of pine species in southeastern Spain. Clim Chang 113:767–785.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0372-6
Sánchez-Salguero R, Camarero JJ, Dobbertin M, Fernández-Cancio Á, Vilà-Cabrera A,

Manzanedo RD, Zavala MA, Navarro-Cerrillo RM (2013) Forest ecology and management
contrasting vulnerability and resilience to drought-induced decline of densely planted vs .
natural rear-edge Pinus nigra forests. For Ecol Manag 310:956–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2013.09.050
Seidl R, Schelhaas M, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ (2014) Increasing forest disturbances in Europe
and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 4: 806–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncli-
mate2318.Increasing
Serrada Hierro R, Aroca Fernández MJ, Roig Gómez S, Bravo Fernández A, Gómez Sanz V (2011)
Impactos, vulnerabilidad y adaptación al cambio climático en el sector forestal. Ministerio
de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/
temas/impactos-vulnerabilidad-y-adaptacion/SECTOR%20FORESTAL_DOCUMENTO%20
COMPLETO_tcm30-178472.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2021
Senf C, Seidl R (2021) Mapping the forest disturbance regimes of Europe. Nat Sustain 4: 63–70.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00609-y
Serra-Varela MJ, Alía R, Pórtoles J, Gonzalo J, Soliño M, Grivet D, Raposo R (2017) Incorporating
exposure to pitch canker disease to support management decisions of Pinus pinaster Ait. in the
face of climate change. PLOS One:e0171549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171549
Sierra-Pérez J, García-Pérez S, Blanc S, Boschmonart-Rives J, Gabarrell X (2018) The use of
forest-based materials for the efficient energy of cities: environmental and economic implica-
tions of cork as insulation material. Sustain Cities Soc 37:628–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2017.12.008
Thomas P, Büntgen U (2019) A risk assessment of Europe’s black truffle sector under predicted
climate change. Sci Total Environ 655:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.252
Trasobares A, Mola-Yudego B, Aquilué N, González-Olabarria JR, Garcia-Gonzalo J, García-
Valdés R, De Cáceres M (2022) Nationwide climate-sensitive models for stand dynam-
ics and forest scenario simulation. For Ecol Manag 505:119909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2021.119909
Turco M, Rosa-Cánovas JJ, Bedia J, Jerez S, Montávez JP, Llasat MC, Provenzale A (2018)
Exacerbated fires in Mediterranean Europe due to anthropogenic warming projected
with non-stationary climate-fire models. Nat Commun 9(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41467-018-06358-z
Turrado Fernández S, Paredes Sánchez JP, Gutiérrez Trashorras AJ (2016) Analysis of forest
residual biomass potential for bioenergy production in Spain. Clean Techn Environ Policy
18(1):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1008-8
Vayreda J, Martinez-Vilalta J, Gracia M, Canadell JG, Retana J (2016) Anthropogenic-driven rapid
shifts in tree distribution lead to increased dominance of broadleaf species. Glob Change Biol
22(12):3984–3995. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13394
Vázquez De La Cueva A, Quintana JR, Cañellas I (2012) Fire activity projections in the SRES A2
and B2 climatic scenarios in peninsular Spain. Int J Wildland Fire 21(6):653–665. https://doi.
org/10.1071/WF11013
Vilà-Cabrera A, Rodrigo A, Martínez-Vilalta J, Retana J (2012) Lack of regeneration and climatic
vulnerability to fire of scots pine may induce vegetation shifts at the southern edge of its distri-
bution. J Biogeogr 39(3):488–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02615.x
Vilà-Cabrera A, Coll L, Martínez-Vilalta J, Retana J (2018) Forest management for adapta-
tion to climate change in the Mediterranean basin: a synthesis of evidence. For Ecol Manag
407:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.021
Chapter 14
The Way Forward: Management
and Policy Actions
Lauri Hetemäki, Jyrki Kangas, Antti Asikainen, Janne Jänis, Jyri Seppälä,
Ari Venäläinen, and Heli Peltola
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,

simple, and wrong.
Henry L. Mencken.
Abstract Along with the evidence and analyses expounded on in this book, this chap-
ter provides conclusions and suggestions concerning policy implications. These are
based on a perspective that calls attention to the need for a holistic approach to look at
the nexus of forests, the bioeconomy and climate change. Moreover, it is emphasised
that, given the different uses of forests and the scarcity of forest resources, it makes
sense to try to find ways to maximise synergies and minimise trade-offs between the
different usages of forests. The forest-based sector contributes to climate-change miti-
gation via three channels––forests are a carbon sink, forest-based products can substi-
tute for fossil-based products, and these products can store carbon for up to centuries.
However, achieving these mitigation potentials in the future depends on forests being
made resilient to the changing climate. Therefore, mitigation and adapting forests to
climate change are married, both needing to be advanced simultaneously. Globally
and in the EU, around 80–90% of the CO2 emissions originate from the use of coal,
L. Hetemäki (*)
J. Kangas · J. Jänis · H. Peltola
A. Asikainen
Natural Resources Institute, Helsinki, Finland
J. Seppälä
A. Venäläinen

230 L. Hetemäki et al.
oil and natural gas. Consequently, the core issue in the fight against climate change is
the phasing out of fossil-based products. Reaching this goal will not be possible with-
out substituting also forest-based bioproducts for the purposes we are using oil, coal
and gas for today. In the EU, this implies paying more attention to the need to develop
new innovations in the forest bioeconomy, improve the resource efficiency and circu-
larity of the bioproducts already available, and monitor the environmental sustainabil-
ity of the bioeconomy.
Keywords Forest bioeconomy · Climate change · Adaptation to climate change ·

Holistic approach · Climate smart forestry · Science policy
14.1 The Nexus of Forests, the Bioeconomy

and Climate Change
The quote preceding this chapter is fitting for the topic of this book––the nexus of
forests, the bioeconomy and climate change. How are forests, the bioeconomy and
climate change interlinked, and how do they impact on each other? As this book has
demonstrated, the answers to these questions are characterised by complexity and a
fair number of features that point even to wicked problems. When you first think
you have found a clear and simple answer, a second thought reveals it to be only
partially useful, or applicable only under a set of restrictive conditions or, in the
worst case, simply wrong.
In this chapter, we provide insights and recommendations for policy actions.
Along with the evidence and analyses expounded on in the previous chapters, these
are also based on a perspective that emphasises the need for a holistic approach for
viewing the nexus of forests, the bioeconomy and climate change. By this, we mean
the following.
First, the approach is based on a self-evident, but often forgotten, fact. That is,
forest resources are not limitless, but always scarce, despite being renewable. This
is true even for the most forested country in the EU––Finland––where forests
account for 74% of the land area. Moreover, there are multiple needs for forests and
their use, such as providing raw materials, biodiversity, food (e.g. berries and mush-
rooms), recreation, hunting and carbon sequestration. Their importance has also
evolved over time, especially in response to changing societal values, human needs,
environmental change and technological development. For example, forest carbon
sequestration has become a large societal need only in the last decade. The scarcity
of forest resources relative to human need has always created potential trade-offs
between the different uses of forests.
These facts bring to the fore the second most important feature of this book’s
approach. That is, given the different uses of forests and the scarcity of forest
resources, it makes sense to try to find ways to maximise synergies and minimise
trade-offs between the usages. Oftentimes these possibilities are not fully
14 The Way Forward: Management and Policy Actions 231
appreciated by people, policy-makers or even scientists, who may, for example, find
the trade-offs between wood production and climate mitigation or between wood
production and biodiversity inevitable. Therefore, one seems to have to choose an
either/or. However, these trade-offs are not always inevitable and, in cases where
these exist, there is usually the possibility of trying to minimise the trade-offs and
maximise the synergies. This could be done e.g. using multi-objective forest man-
agement in which the simultaneous maximisation of multiple objectives increases
the overall production levels of several ecosystem services (Biber et al. 2020; Díaz-
Yáñez et al. 2020; Krumm et al. 2020). Indeed, it has even been argued that, in a
modern society for example, biodiversity is necessary to the bioeconomy, and vice
versa (Hetemäki et al. 2017; Palahi et al. 2020a, b). On the other hand, to achieve
climate-change mitigation goals in the long term, forests should also be used for
products that can substitute for fossil-based raw materials, the use of which is the
root cause of climate change.
If one accepts the principle of these arguments, then the need to find synergies
and minimise trade-offs between the bioeconomy, climate-change mitigation and
biodiversity becomes a necessity. The downside of understanding this is that the
world becomes much more complex. As a result, there is no longer any one single
and simple solution to how the forest-based sector could, in the best possible way,
contribute to climate-change mitigation or ensure biodiversity. Instead, diverse and
tailored solutions are needed to accommodate different regions and circumstances.
In this book, we have argued that climate-smart forestry, tailored to regional cir-
cumstances, provides a useful approach for increasing the forest-based sector’s
mitigation potential and helping forests adapt to the changing climate, while at the
same time paying attention to the other needs for forests.
14.2 Multiple Forms of Knowledge and Expertise Required
The chapters in this book have included discussions on the feedback impacts
between the natural biological world (forests) and social and technological pro-
cesses (the technosystem), as well as the leakage impacts between regions.
Moreover, it has become clear that, for research to derive results, it always needs to
impose restrictions and assumptions, and analyse each phenomenon from some
very particular perspective. Also, it is impossible to formulate alternative scenarios
(counterfactuals) and evaluate their impacts with certainty. For example, in theory,
we could compare the development of forest carbon sinks under two alternative
scenarios involving wood harvesting levels. In one, the current level of annual wood
harvesting in the EU is maintained, whilst in the other, the forest carbon sink is
increasing due to a reduction in annual wood harvesting of 50% by 2050. What
would be the impacts and differences between these two scenarios in terms of
climate-change mitigation? The list of key impacts one would need to consider for
this comparison is daunting––carbon sequestration in forests, the substitution
impact of wood products, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions technology
development in non-wood sectors, carbon storage in wood products, the impacts of

adaptation to the changing climate and forest disturbances, impacts on the forest
carbon sink and wood harvesting in other regions (leakages), etc. Also, the analysis
would need to be dynamic, making assumptions, for example, about what types of
products forest products could substitute for in 2050 and how significant would
their substitution impacts then be, or how much the changed climate at that time had
increased the occurrence and impact of forest disturbances (forest fires, bark-beetle
outbreaks, wind damage, etc.).
Moreover, it should be noted that the climate benefits from increased carbon
sequestration in forests, gained by tailoring (adapting) forest management practices
or by lowering wood-harvesting levels, may also be reinforced, counteracted or
even offset by other concurrent changes. For example, by surface albedo, land-
surface roughness, emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, transpiration
and sensible heat flux (Luyssaert et al. 2018). Consequently, the tailoring of forest
management could offset CO2 emissions without halting the global temperature
rise. However, it would probably be impossible for one study, or even a meta-study,
to capture all these impacts. Even if it could, a number of restrictions and assump-
tions would need to be imposed, the realism of which would elicit many different
views among scientists. Thus, currently no absolute truth of the impacts of different
scenarios can be produced.
As Hulme et al. (2020) stated, “Technical and scientific knowledge is always
partial, uncertain and often contradictory”, but “that is not to say that such knowl-
edge is not valuable… It is rather to say that to effectively deal with crises, multiple
forms of knowledge and expertise are required, and political judgment is then nec-
essary to sort, select and present it to public” (p. 4). Priebe et al. (2020) also explored
a range of interacting obstacles that inhibited the increased use of forests as a
climate-change mitigation tool. They state that “it is not a lack of knowledge or
technical solutions that inhibits adapting measures to tackle climate change mitiga-
tion”, but “current attempts to advise, guide, and implement sustainability suffer
from an inability to examine and challenge prevailing values, habits, and ways of
thinking” (p. 82).
Clearly, despite the complexity of the issue, the answer is not for us to raise up
our hands and do nothing to mitigate climate change. Instead, scientific evidence
should continue to be an important part of informing policy-makers, and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and sim-
ilar works are needed for assessing, synthesising and communicating this evidence
for the making of policy (see Box 11.1).
In the scientific literature, there has been perhaps too much focus on the trade-
offs between different actions and their impacts on mitigating climate change. Also,
climate-change mitigation is often analysed separately from climate-change adap-
tation and other societal aspirations, such as reaching the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, Luyssaert et al. (2018) sug-
gested that the primary role of forest management measures in Europe in the com-
ing decades was not to protect the climate, but to adapt the forests to future climate
in order to sustain the provisioning of wood and ecological, social and cultural ser-
vices, while avoiding harmful (positive) climate feedbacks from fire, wind, pest and
drought disturbances. Consequently, climate-change mitigation needs to be
addressed simultaneously with other objectives, and the right balance of measures
must be found that are politically possible to implement in the shortest time possi-
ble, because we are in a hurry to mitigate climate change.
Another issue that is important to bear in mind when interpreting scientific
results is that the issue at hand can be more diverse and extensive than what the
research may have considered. Let us illustrate this point with one example. In
Chaps. 7 and 8, the role of wood as a substitute for fossil-based products was taken
up. Related to this, a frequent suggestion from the research is that wood should not
be used for short-lived products, such as energy and packaging, but instead for long-
lived products that store carbon for a long period, such as wooden buildings. Also,
the European Commission (2021) “leaked” Forest Strategy draft document recom-
mended moving from short-lived wood products to long-lived ones. However, it is
uncertain how workable this suggestion is in practice.
First, the world will not do without short-lived products, such as packaging,
hygiene and textiles. They should also be made as low-carbon as possible. Short-
lived products can also help to reduce CO2 emissions. For example, food packaging
helps to reduce food waste, and therefore also food production, which is associated
with CO2 emissions. Short-lived products may also be made from a different wood
material than long-lived products––pulpwood, wood chips and production by-
products (e.g. lignin) could be used. Logs are usually more suitable for producing
long-lasting products, such as wooden buildings. Second, it might be possible that,
in some cases, the net carbon mitigation impact of a short-lived forest-based product
may be greater than for a long-lived product (Leskinen et al. 2018). This could also
be possibly, for example, in the case when a country exports short-lived, wood-
based textile fibres to China, where they help to replace synthetic, oil-based textiles
in a manufacturing process that is also heavily coal based, versus using the wood
fibre for some more long-lived product in the exporting country. For example, the
EU27 exported 63% of its dissolving pulp in 2019, mainly to China and India. In
these countries, dissolving pulp is used to replace synthetic (oil-based) fibres in the
textile industry. Third, the climate-mitigation perspective is not the only important
perspective; there are other possible environmental factors, such as plastics waste in
the oceans or the quantity of materials used. Finally, the average service life of
wood fibres in short-lived products could be substantially prolonged using recycling
practices. For the reasons above, recommendations to use wood only in long-lasting
products could be an oversimplification, and not necessarily optimal for climate
mitigation.
Despite these complexities, it is self-evident that the forest-based sector can
improve its performance in climate-change mitigation, for example, by reducing the
use of fossil fuels in every part of the value chain, from harvest to the end-product
market. Improvements in resource and production efficiency and circularity along
the product chain can also decrease emissions and enhance biodiversity (e.g. less
wood needs to be harvested, ceteris paribus).
Finally, when advancing a sustainable circular bioeconomy and tackling the

grand challenges of the day, discussion culture is important. Unfortunately, we live
in times in which some key politicians, parts of the traditional media and, especially,
social media are enhancing societal polarisation. People seem to be taking evermore
opposite and competing views, in which there is only black and white, with no
shades of grey. This sometimes seems to rear its head in scientific discussion, or the
science is used as a pretext for adopting clear positions and values (Pielke 2007;
Hetemäki 2019). Opinions such as, “it is necessary to conserve all forests to act as
carbon sinks” or “clear-cut harvesting is always a positive climate action”, do not
help us to reach urgently needed solutions. In this context, it is also important to
monitor what type of perceptions the public gets from science and media, since
perceptions shape opinions, media and voting, and therefore also political decisions.
14.3 Public Perceptions and Forest Bioeconomy
Public perception studies have shown that EU citizens appreciate forests mostly for
the environmental services they provide; that is, as places for biodiversity, but also
for their climate effects and the recreational opportunities they offer (Ranacher et al.
2020). However, Ranacher et al. (2020) also indicated that the potential role of the
forest bioeconomy in climate mitigation is not well understood by the public.
However, there are no clear research results that explain why this might be so. One
guess is that this could be partly related to the fact that an increasing number of EU
citizens live in urban areas, and they might be more inclined to appreciate the ser-
vices that forests provide, rather than the products and welfare that is generated by
the forest bioeconomy (Mauser 2021). In the EU in 2019, urban and peri-urban citi-
zens accounted for a 75% share of the population, and therefore their views weight
particularly strongly in public perceptions.1
For urban citizens, forests may have different meanings than for rural people and
for those who live in and manage forests. Urban citizens may also be unaware of the
benefits they derive from the forest-based sector. During an ordinary day, they may
use or benefit from several wood-based products, such as buildings, furniture, food,
packaging, clothing and energy, without realising that these are based on forests.
Some of the benefits of the forest bioeconomy may be even more hidden; for exam-
ple, in some EU countries with significant amounts of forests and forest industries
(e.g. Austria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Sweden), wood production and forest
products help to generate income-, capital- and corporate-tax revenues, besides the
more visible employment and income opportunities. These tax revenues can be used
1
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?end=2019&locations=EU&
start=2019
to fund such things as social security, education and other societal infrastructure for
the benefits of all citizens.2
Understandably, the forest-based sector and the benefits it generates may lie out-
side the urban bubbles in which the bulk of us live in the EU. Clearly, the forest-
based sector has an interest and responsibility itself to communicate and inform the
public of its sector and why it is important. In addition, to achieve a greater accep-
tance of the forest bioeconomy among citizens and policy-makers, it is important to
provide facts about how the forest bioeconomy can be applied in order to respond to
the more ambitious targets of climate-change mitigation and biodiversity
conservation.
However, when EU or national policies are designed, it is also the responsibility
of the European Commission, the European Parliament and national politicians to
be informed and to be appreciative of the many benefits––not only some––that the
EU forest-based sector provides for society. On the other hand, just as important is
to acknowledge that the forest-based sector can also generate visible or hidden dis-
benefits for society, in terms of negative externalities, such as the loss or lack of
biodiversity, the carbon sink, recreational opportunities and flood control. These
disbenefits can be significant, especially if the forests are not managed and their
bioproducts are not produced sustainably.
The European Green Deal (European Commission 2019) proposal did acknowl-
edge the potential disbenefits of the forest sector and suggested important measures
to tackle these. However, it failed to fully appreciate the potential benefits, such as
a sustainable forest bioeconomy for climate mitigation and for achieving the SDGs
(Palahí et al. 2020a, b). Emphasising only some of the benefits of forests is more
likely to enhance the polarisation on this topic in society, which in turn could back-
fire by making it more difficult to further climate-mitigation and biodiversity objec-
tives. In summary, it is essential that policy-makers have a holistic approach to the
forest-based sector, and take into account all the many diverse impacts it can have,
not just some.
14.4 The Role of EU Forests and the Forest-Based Sector
The European Green Deal (European Commission 2019) has set the overarching
targets for EU policies in the coming years. At the heart of it is achieving climate
neutrality by 2050, halting biodiversity loss and reaching the SDGs. In other words,
paving the way to policies that will help the EU to live within the planetary boundar-
ies. According to the messages coming from this book, how should the EU-forest-
based sector help in this, and what types of policies could support this?
2
For example, in Finland, the major forest-industry companies are the highest corporate tax-
payers, the 10 largest of these alone paying €321 million in corporate taxes in 2019. For compari-
son, this is about the same amount that all the banks and insurance companies in the top 100
corporate tax-payers (17 companies) paid in 2019 (€335 million).
14.4.1 Role of the EU Forests
The urgency of mitigating climate change is key due to its potentially widespread
and drastic impacts. Climate change also impacts all the other goals of the EU, such
as biodiversity and the SDGs. The urgency itself makes things more difficult, espe-
cially in forests and the forest-based sector, which rely on slowly renewable––from
decades to centuries––nature and wood. The urgency has also shifted political and
public eyes to the land sector (agricultural land and forests) for help in reaching the
climate-mitigation goals. There is an expectation that the speed at which we can
reduce the root cause of climate change––burning fossil raw materials––is too slow
for the set targets. Therefore, simultaneously increasing carbon storage and the for-
est sink in the coming decades is necessary, despite the fact that this could poten-
tially become an excuse for some to continue to use fossil materials. Nevertheless,
the reality seems to be that the EU will need larger land-based sinks in order to
reach carbon neutrality by 2050 (IPCC 2019; Simon 2020).
As Chap. 2 explained, the EU27 forests account for 3.9% of the world’s forests.
Given this, it can have only a marginal direct impact at the global level via increased
forest carbon sequestration. But every region has to contribute to climate mitigation.
The aggregate impact of different regions counts, in the end, towards the global for-
est sink. Moreover, the indirect impacts of increasing EU forest carbon sequestra-
tion in the coming decades may be even more important. The EU is one key region
in which the forest area, the annual volume growth of growing stock and the forest
carbon stock have increased in the last decades. What is notable is that this hap-
pened at the same time as the EU27 wood production increased by 43%, from 1990
to 2019 (FAOSTAT 2021). The forest area has increased through natural forest
expansion and the afforestation of low-productivity agricultural lands. Improved
forest management practices and changing environmental conditions (e.g. nitrogen
deposition and climate change) have increased the annual volume growth, carbon
sequestration and storage of the EU forests. These have also been increasing because
the annual wood harvesting has clearly been lower than the annual volume growth
of the forests for a number of decades. This example of how to continue to increase
forest growth and the carbon stock is important for other, less successful regions.
The book suggest various ways in which forest carbon sequestration can be
increased in the future. Accordingly, the intensity of forest management and har-
vesting, and the severity of climate change and the associated increases in natural
forest disturbances, will together determine the future development of carbon
sequestration and storage in EU forests. Increasing the use of tailored adaptive for-
est management measures, such as the site−/region-specific cultivation of different
tree species and genotypes (improved regeneration material), adjusting the fre-
quency and intensity of thinnings and rotation lengths, using forest fertilisation and
growing mixed forests, may still help to increase carbon sequestration and enhance
forest resilience in the EU under the changing climate. Carbon sequestration may
also be increased by increasing the forested area through natural forest expansion
and the afforestation of low-productivity agricultural lands. However, forest carbon
sink can also decrease due to an increase in natural forest disturbances. Overall,
though, carbon sequestration and sinks in EU forests are likely to increase in the
coming decades, as long as the annual wood harvesting and natural drain remains
lower than the annual volume growth of the forests.
Forest conservation can play an important role in achieving carbon neutrality in
the EU by 2050, but it is difficult to see how it could be the whole solution. Recent
evidence from those regions that have not managed or harvested their forests for a
long period of time, and that have suffered from serious disturbances, including for-
est fires, bark-beetle outbreaks and storms, for example, points to this conclusion
(Högberg et al. 2021). Such regions occur e.g. in Australia, California, Canada,
Russia and, in the EU, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Spain. As a result, forests
have been destroyed and large amounts of GHGs have been emitted to the atmo-
sphere. According to Camia et al. (2021), the wood harvested due to natural distur-
bances reached over 100 million m3 (22.8% of the total removals) in 2018, in just 17
of the EU Member States that were surveyed. Moreover, old, unmanaged forests
seem to sequester carbon less than young, managed forests (Gundersen et al. 2021).
Thus, not managing forests and conserving them (which is clearly needed for many
reasons) may also pose serious risks for climate-change mitigation. Between the
extremes of conservation and deforestation, there are options for sustainably man-
aging forests in ways that can retain them for generations as a source of a wide
variety of ecosystem services.
In summary, it seems apparent that conserving the bulk of EU forests may not be
an optimal climate-mitigation strategy (Nabuurs et al. 2017; EU 2018; IPCC 2019).
The question is more about synergies and trade-offs between forest carbon sinks
and forest management intensity in the short and medium terms. The land use, land-
use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation (EU 2018) allows member states to
increase their forest utilisation for industrial and energy-production purposes in the
future, if they can maintain or strengthen their long-term carbon sinks in forests and
wood products. The EU wants to see a climate-neutral pathway to 2050 where the
sinks of the LULUCF sector and all GHG emissions caused by humans are taken
into account.
14.4.2 Role of the EU Forest-Based Bioeconomy
In general, the EU forest-based bioeconomy is responding to all sustainability chal-

lenges from the viewpoint of economic and environmental concerns and the societal
transition towards sustainability (European Commission 2018, 2020). The starting
point is that, by using more and more efficiently renewable materials, the increasing
demand for non-renewable raw materials in the world can be curbed (International
Resource Panel 2019), and this can lead to a more sustainable future, given that the
biomass resources are used in sustainable way.
The updated EU Bioeconomy Strategy (European Commission 2018) highlights
actions that will lead the way towards a sustainable and circular bioeconomy. They
are: (1) strengthen and scale-up the bio-based sectors, unlock investments and mar-
kets; (2) deploy local bioeconomies rapidly across Europe; and (3) understand the
ecological boundaries of the bioeconomy. In these ways, the Bioeconomy Strategy
will maximise the contribution of the bioeconomy to the major EU policy priorities
of sustainability, the creation of jobs, climate objectives, and the modernisation and
strengthening of the EU industrial base. However, it is necessary to develop the
bioeconomy in a way that lessens pressures on the environment, values and protects
biodiversity and enhances all ecosystem services.
The role of, and necessity for, the forest bioeconomy in climate mitigation and
the phasing out of fossil raw materials and products has been demonstrated in this
book and in several studies (e.g. Hetemäki et al. 2017; Hurmekoski et al. 2018;
IPCC 2019; Palahí et al. 2020a, b). Globally and in the EU, around 80–90% of the
CO2 emissions originate from the use of coal, oil and natural gas. Consequently, the
core issue in the fight against climate change is the phasing out of fossil fuels and
materials. If major efforts are not put into tackling these, they will remain a nui-
sance. In this context, it is difficult to see how climate mitigation can be possible
without also using forest biomass to replace fossil-based raw materials and prod-
ucts. The forest bioeconomy is not going to be a sufficient way to solve the climate-
change challenge on its own, but it is a necessary part of it.
In 2018 in the EU27, the GHG emissions were 3893 Mt. CO2eq., of which 83.5%
came from two sectors––energy production and industry (Eurostat data). In
2010–2016, EU forests helped to remove, on average every year, 10.4% of the total
EU CO2eq. emissions (Eurostat data). Including the impact of harvested-wood
products, this figure was 11.3%, on average (Eurostat data). The EU is aiming to be
climate-neutral by 2050––that is, a region with net-zero GHG emissions. Therefore,
given the above figures, it is clear that the main priority should be to reduce emis-
sions from fossil-based energy and industry to get them as close to zero as possible.
Increasing EU forest removals will not reach this policy target. That is not to say
that they are not important, or that the LULUCF regulation is needed to enhance
this. Clearly, the EU has to do its share to increase the forest sink and removals, and
in this way, show how it can be done. However, it is very important that the LULUCF
regulation does not lead the debate and draw the focus of EU climate-change miti-
gation towards technical and relatively smaller issues, and away from the main issue
itself, which is phasing out fossil fuels (Appiah et al. 2021, Berndes et al. 2018).
This implies paying more attention to the need to develop new innovations in the
forest bioeconomy, as well as improve the resource efficiency and circularity of cur-
rent bioproducts.
In summary, it is essential that we use forest-based bioproducts for the same
purposes we are currently using oil, coal and gas. However, given that it is unrealis-
tic to phase out all fossil production by 2050, any remaining GHGs from these need
to be balanced with an equivalent amount of carbon removal, for example by
increasing the forest sink and through direct carbon capture and storage (CCS) tech-
nologies. Indeed, as Nabuurs et al. (2017) have argued, the EU can significantly
increase the forest-based sector mitigation impact through forest removals and
forest-product substitution impacts. These can be achieved by introducing new

climate-smart forestry measures, and it is essential to seek to utilise this opportunity.
14.5 Combining Climate Mitigation with Other Goals
In the EU, climate mitigation is a top priority, but not the only one. The SDGs are
also important priorities, and these include responsible consumption and produc-
tion, sustainable cities and communities, and affordable and clean energy, among
other things. According to the statistics reported in Chap. 1 (Box 1.1), employment
in the forest bioeconomy in the EU28 was about 2.5 million, generating around
€277 billion value added, in 2015. Moreover, wood-based construction, textiles and
packaging are viewed as promising ways to make the EU’s construction, clothing
and packaging industries more sustainable.
Phasing out fossil-based industries will create a need to replace lost jobs (see
Chap. 4, Box 4.3). Moreover, as the EU has emphasised, the Just Transition
Mechanism is a key tool for ensuring that “the transition towards a climate-neutral
economy happens in a fair way, leaving no one behind” (European Commission
2020). Even if the climate disaster looms with a 2, 3 or 4 °C temperature rise, it is
possible that people could still reject the societal transition if they believe it to be
unjust. As the former American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, has said “No
policy—no matter how ingenious—has any chance of success, if it is born in the
minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none”. The better the climate mitigation
measures support other economic and societal goals and needs, the wider and stron-
ger support they are likely to get amongst the citizens of the EU Member States. As
a result, the mitigation measures could be adapted more promptly, and their imple-
mentation could be more efficient.
In summary, the circular forest bioeconomy may meet many diverse societal
needs in the EU, along with its climate mitigation impact. Clearly, the success of
meeting all these needs depends on how well the Member States are also able to
impose the environmental sustainability of the forest bioeconomy. For this to hap-
pen, improving forest management and better adapting forests to the changing cli-
mate, increasing the resource efficiency of forest bioeconomy products, their
circularity and new product innovations, as well as monitoring the bioeconomy’s
environmental sustainability are a must.
Key Messages
1. The forest-based sector3 contributes to climate change mitigation via three
channels––forests are a carbon sink, forest-based products can substitute for
fossil based-products, and these products can store carbon for up to centu-
ries. However, in order to produce climate benefits, the possible loss of carbon
stock (sinks) in forests due to harvesting should be smaller than the increased
3
The forest-based sector is here understood to include forests, forestry and forest-based products
and energy.
GHG benefits of wood utilisation in the selected time frame. To achieve this
mitigation objective in the future, forests also need to be resilient to changing
climate. Therefore, mitigation and adapting forests to climate change are
married, and both need to be advanced simultaneously.
2. The root cause of climate change and the scale of the impacts of different mea-
sures to mitigate it are important to keep in mind. Sometimes in the climate
discussion, these self-evident facts seem to get lost, and small and large mea-
sures and impacts may get mixed. Globally and in the EU, around 80–90% of
the CO2 emissions originate from the use of coal, oil and natural gas.
Consequently, the core issue in the fight against climate change is the phasing
out of fossil fuels. It is essential to acknowledge that reaching this goal will not
be possible without also using forest-based bioproducts to substitute for the
current use of oil, coal and gas. In the EU forest-based context, this implies pay-
ing more attention to the need to develop new innovations in the forest
bioeconomy, improving the resource efficiency and circularity of current bio-
products, and imposing and monitoring the environmental sustainability of
the bioeconomy.
3. The optimal strategy to use forests and the forest-based sector to mitigate cli-
mate change, and to adapt them to the changing climate, requires a holistic
approach. There is no single, optimal way for the forest-based sector to contrib-
ute to maximising mitigation and adaptation gains. Conserving forests only for
carbon sequestration (storage, sinks) or using forests only for producing wood
for forest bioproducts will not work. Both are needed for many different rea-
sons, as the chapters in this book have explained. Moreover, the optimal strat-
egy needs to be tailored to the regional circumstances and characteristics. It
may also need to be adjusted frequently over time as climate change proceeds.
4. European forests belong mainly to the boreal and temperate forests. The life-
cycles of the trees in these forests range from less than 100 years in managed
forests to several hundred years in natural forests. The harvesting of trees to
produce wood products takes place over a range of 20–100 years after one for-
est regeneration. Therefore, when making decisions on forests, it is essential to
keep in mind a time horizon of up to a century. However, this is becoming
increasingly difficult in our evermore rapidly changing world, in which con-
tinuous change is the norm. Also, the urgency of mitigating climate change and
halting the loss of biodiversity call for rapid actions. This situation heightens
the importance of the holistic approach and the involvement of all science dis-
ciplines and societal perspectives to plan sustainable actions regarding the
entire forest-based sector. No single political party or interest group is likely to
have the wisdom, and perhaps not always even the interest, to see the holistic
picture.4
5. The risks of large-scale disturbances induced by weather extremes, such as
droughts, storms and forest fires, have to be taken into account when appropri-
4
American writer Upton Sinclair once stated: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
ate forest management measures are being defined over time to adapt to the
changing climate. Carbon circulates between the atmosphere and forests either
through natural cycles (e.g. decaying litter and organic matter and forest fires),
or through harvesting and the use of wood for materials and energy. A viable
forest sector enables the management of forests over large areas and adjust-
ments to forest management measures, when needed. The recovery of damaged
wood or the reduction of the fuel load in forests is possible on a large scale, if
there is a techno-system to enable both the harvesting and use of wood for the
needs of society.
6. The willingness of forest owners and society to adopt certain forest manage-
ment measures depends on how they impact the other benefits generated by
forests. The more synergies that can be found and the fewer trade-offs between
them, the more likely and effectively they can be implemented. In short, the
effectiveness of the management measures needs to be assessed in their socio-
economic context.
7. The EU is not an island and its activities have impacts beyond its borders, for
better or worse. It can serve as a good example to other regions of how ambi-
tious climate and biodiversity goals can be achieved simultaneously. It can also
demonstrate how the synergies can be maximised and the trade-offs minimised
between a circular bioeconomy, climate-change mitigation and the maintenance
of biodiversity. On the other hand, the EU climate mitigation and biodiversity
policies can have negative leakage impacts on the climate-change mitigation
and biodiversity in non-EU countries (Kallio et al. 2018; Dieter et al. 2020).
Consequently, the EU should assess the impacts of its policies in the global
context, not only within its own borders.
8. The world states are evermore interconnected, and therefore the problems they
face tend to be increasingly global in nature, such as climate change, biodiver-
sity loss, economic crises and pandemics. However, the consequences of such
crises, and how they are solved, vary significantly, depending on regional fea-
tures, such as national institutions and decision-making. How countries have
been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of this. The
nexus between forests, the bioeconomy and climate-change mitigation is no
different. These things are linked by global challenges and opportunities, but
their optimal implementation requires tailoring to regional and local circum-
stances––one size does not fit all. It is essential to acknowledge this when the
EU is planning policies related to forests, the bioeconomy and climate-change
mitigation for its Member States. It can be argued that the stronger the EU is,
the better it will succeed in coordinating common actions, but with Member
State level tailoring and optimisation.
9. It is important that science-based bodies like the IPCC and the IPBES make syn-
theses of the available knowledge and inform policy-making. However, the tech-
nical and scientific knowledge is always partial, uncertain and can even be
contradictory. That is not to say that such knowledge is not valuable and needed.
Rather, it points to the fact that to effectively deal with global-scale problems like
climate change, multiple forms of knowledge and expertise are required.
Moreover, how to best use the forest-based sector to mitigate and adapt to climate
change is not just a reducible engineering-type of problem, like how to get a man
to the moon. Rather, it is a complex technological, economic, social, cultural
and value problem. “In the end the decisions are made by policymakers, and
therefore, the decisions are political not scientific. In most societies, these deci-
sions rest on democratic mandate, and so it should be” (Hetemäki 2019, p. 15).
10. The fundamental transformation of our society to carbon neutrality and sustain-
ability is probably the greatest socio-political question we have faced since
World War II. It has to be carried out in a way that people see it as just.
Otherwise, there is a danger that the whole process will be derailed and the
transition will not happen. This is also true in the EU forest-based sector.
Box 14.1: Science Role in Informing Policy-Making

Lauri Hetemäki
Politicians, the media and the public, especially in the EU, are increasingly
demanding evidence-based information to inform policy-making on complex
issues such as climate change and biodiversity (Hetemäki 2019). According to
Gluckman and Wilsdon (2016), “Scientific advice to governments has never
been in greater demand; nor has it been more contested”. Populist ‘post-truth’
politicians and social media warriors have questioned the legitimacy of
science-based information. Ex-President Trump’s questioning of the scientific
evidence on climate change is one well-known example. But science skeptics
can be found in Europe, as well, such as the senior British politician Michael
Gove, who stated, during the Brexit referendum, that “people in this country
have had enough of experts”.
The matter is made more complex by the fact that there have occasionally
been striking disparities between what the scientists’ messages are (Hetemäki
2019). At the same time, there is an increasing amount of science information
available. According to UNESCO (2015), almost 1.3 million scientific arti-
cles were published in 2014 alone, and there were 7.8 million full-time-
equivalent researchers in 2013. Moreover, evidence-based policy-making has
been the subject of much debate in the literature, particularly through cri-
tiques that question assumptions about the nature of the policy-making pro-
cess, the validity of evidence, the skewing in favour of certain types of
evidence, and the potentially undemocratic implications (Pielke 2007;
Parkhurst 2017; Hetemäki 2019). One concern with evidence-based policy-
making is that it does not recognise the contested nature of evidence itself––
an area that has been the subject of a large body of research in the fields of the
sociology of science and science and technology studies (Pielke 2007;
Parkhurst 2017). These studies have drawn attention to the inevitably value-
laden nature of scientific inquiry, and the choices that are made about what to
(continued)
Box 14.1 (continued)

research and how to undertake that research. Moreover, the choice of evidence
can be value-laden and political in itself.
In December 2020, the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry
(KSLA) organised a seminar with the title ‘Research results on forests are not
always evidence’.5 It may seem strange that an academic and science-based insti-
tution would choose to organise such a seminar, especially at a time when science
information is so often being contested. However, as one might expect, the KSLA
seminar did not question the importance of science knowledge in informing pol-
icy, as such, but rather it wanted to raise concerns about how evidence-based
policy support can also be used incorrectly, and to advance specific interests and
agendas. The seminar explained that research findings, or the conclusions that are
drawn from the research, are not always well substantiated. The question was
asked whether scientists and science publishers were seeking to gain power over
policy-making, and if so, what did this mean for the democratic process? A key
objective, therefore, is how to find a reasonable balance between more use of
evidence-based information, whilst critically assessing new research results and
keeping policy-making in the hands of politicians not scientists.
The KSLA seminar also raised questions about the role science publishers
and the European Commission, in particular, drawing on the recent example
of an article by Ceccherini et al. (2020), published in one of the most esteemed
science journals––Nature. Using satellite data, the article reported an increase
of 49% in the European harvested forest area alongside a biomass loss of 69%
for the period 2016–2018 relative to 2011–2015. The article suggested that
these increases reflected expanding wood markets, encouraged by the EU’s
bioeconomy policies. The article was written by the staff of the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre––an institute responsible for providing
evidence-based policy support for the EU. The article received an exceptional
amount of media publicity all over Europe, as well as major policy attention,
especially within the European Commission. Nature also published an
Editorial (Nature 2020) based on the article, from which it drew the following
conclusions and policy implications: “This is an important finding. It has
implications for biodiversity and climate-change policies, and for the part for-
ests play in nations’ efforts to reach net-zero emissions… the increase in har-
vested forest area has been driven, in part, by demand for greener fuels, some
of which are produced from wood biomass. This increase in biomass products
can, in turn, be traced to the EU’s bioeconomy strategy… Meeting renewable
energy targets means burning Europe’s harvest… [and] forest exploitation
cannot continue at the current rate”.
(continued)
5
https://www.ksla.se/aktivitet/forskningsresultat-om-skog-ar-inte-alltid-evidens/

In a response to Ceccherini et al. (2020), also published in Nature, 33 sci-
entists from 13 European countries provided evidence that threw into doubt
the conclusions of the JRC study (Palahí et al. 2021). They demonstrated that
the large reported harvest changes resulted from methodological errors. These
errors related to satellite sensitivity having improved markedly over the period
of the assessment, as well as to changes in the forests associated with natural
disturbances––drought- and storm-related dieback and treefalls––that are
often wrongly attributed to timber harvests. Palahí et al. (2021) stated that:
“We argue that the reported changes reflect analytical artefacts, with (1)
inconsistencies in the forest change time series, (2) misattribution of natural
disturbances as harvests, and (3) lack of causality with the suggested bio-
economy policy frameworks”. In addition to Palahí et al. (2021), some
European organisations responsible for providing national forest statics
voiced serious concerns that the Ceccherini et al. (2020) results were in con-
flict with official data on forest harvests (see, also, Wernick et al. 2021). Even
after these concerns and pointing out the errors, the European Commission
continued to refer to Ceccherini et al. (2020) as a basis for policy planning
related to EU forests, such as biodiversity and climate policies.6
The seminar and example of an erroneous scientific paper, as well as simi-
lar lessons learnt from science-policy work (Pielke 2007; Parkhurst 2017;
Hetemäki 2019), should raise awareness that we be critical, and understand
the different interests that may lie behind producing science-based evidence
and its publication and use. For example, different interest groups and non-
governmental organisations are always fighting for the attention of policy-
makers and the media, and they have great skills in searching for and selecting
(i.e. cherry-picking) the scientific papers that support their specific agendas,
using only those to lobby politicians and gain the media spotlight (Herajärvi
2021). Scientists may also have their own agendas, which may affect their
selection of research topics and their scope, as well as fine-tuning the mes-
sages they deliver. In summary, not all science-based evidence, its publication
and use, are equally neutral, robust and helpful - even if these are published in
the most esteemed science journals.
The answer to the above challenges is not to do less science or use less
science-policy information and dialogue, but to do it better. For this, several
actions can be helpful. First, make science-policy work holistic and multidis-
ciplinary. The problems we are facing are becoming evermore complex, such
(continued)
6
For example, the Commissioner for Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, still referred to
Ceccherini et al. (2020) results as important and valid in an interview by the main Swedish news-
paper Dagens Nyheter, 14 June 2021. https://www.dn.se/debatt/tillsatt-en-skogsberedning-
for-att-bromsa-polariseringen/

as the nexus between forests, biodiversity, climate change and the bioecon-
omy. However, science has become ever more specialised and focused on
very specific and detailed questions, since this is how science advances. It has
to set so-called system boundaries and exclude some factors from the analysis
for it to be manageable. Given these drawbacks, there seems to be no other
way to escape from this narrow and partial perspective than to produce holis-
tic and multidisciplinary science-policy reviews, assessments and synthesis
studies, and tailor these to a format that decision-makers can absorb.
To inform policy-making, there is a need for more cooperation among sci-
entists to synthesise cross-disciplinary and multi-perspective science knowl-
edge. It would also be desirable if this could be carried out by scientists with
different values, and not only among those who are like-minded. This is what,
for example, the IPCC, IPBES and UN International Resource Panel seek to
do. They synthesise and contextualise multidisciplinary, global scientific
knowledge for better informed decision-making. Such works should become
the norm rather than the exception also at the national level. However, to be
able to do such work, new funding is needed. Science-policy work is not
research, as such, but rather the synthesis of existing research. Therefore, it
will not generally be able to draw resources from research funding institu-
tions. There is also a need to develop new funding mechanisms for science-
policy work.
In summary, for better-informed science-policy-making, there is an
increasing demand for greater cooperation in synthesising cross-disciplinary
and multi-perspective science knowledge. Moreover, when policy-makers
and the media use science information, it is important for them to be able to
carefully assess the robustness of the information and find out if it has broad
support in the science community.
Therefore, it is important that the people who work in, and make a living
from, forests and the forest-based sector are engaged and treated in a just
way, so that they feel ownership of, and are willing to contribute effectively to,
the transition.
References
Appiah Mensah A, Petersson H, Berndes G, Egnell G, Ellison D, Lundblad M, Lundmark

T, Lundström A, Stendahl J, Wikberg P-E (2021) On the role of forestry in climate change
mitigation. EGU General Assembly 2021, EGU21–16472. https://doi.org/10.5194/
egusphere-egu21-16472
Berndes G, Goldmann M, Johnsson F, Lindroth A, Wijkman A, Abt B, Bergh J, Cowie A,

Kalliokoski T, Kurz W, Luyssaert S, Nabuurs GJ (2018) Forests and the climate: manage for
maximum wood production or leave the forest as a carbon sink? Report by the Royal Swedish
Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. https://www.ksla.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/
KSLAT-6-2018-Forests-and-the-climate.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J, Bingöl Ö, Borges JG et al
(2020) Forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies
and trade-offs for ten forest landscapes across Europe. Front Ecol Evol 8:e547696. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fevo.2020.547696
Camia A, Giuntoli J, Jonsson R, Robert N, Cazzaniga NE, Jasinevičius G, Avitabile V, Grassi
G, Barredo JI, Mubareka S (2021) The use of woody biomass for energy production in the
EU. European Commission. JRC science for policy report. Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-76-27867-2. https://doi.org/10.2760/831621, JRC122719
Ceccherini G, Duveiller G, Grassi G et al (2020) Abrupt increase in harvested forest area over
Europe after 2015. Nature 583:72–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2438-y
Díaz-Yáñez O, Pukkala T, Packalen P, Lexer M, Peltola H (2020) Multi-objective forestry
increases the production of ecosystem services. Forestry 94:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/
forestry/cpaa041
Dieter M, Weimar H, Iost S, Englert H, Fischer R, Günter S, Morland C, Roering HW, Schier F,
Seintsch B, Schweinle J, Zhunusov E (2020) Assessment of possible leakage effects of imple-
menting EU COM proposals for the EU biodiversity strategy on forestry and forests in non-EU
countries. Thünen working paper 159. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.307498
2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use
change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU)
No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.156.01.0001.01.ENG. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
European Commission (2018) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe – strengthening the connec-
tion between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy. https://
knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/sustainable-bioeconomy-europe-strengthening-
connection-between-economy-society_en. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
European Commission (2019) European Green Deal. Striving to be the first climate-neutral
continent. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.
European Commission (2020) A strong social Europe for just transitions. https://ec.europa.eu/
commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_20. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
European Commission (2021) New EU Forest Strategy post-2020: draft “leaked” 16 June 2021
FAOSTAT (2021) Forestry production and trade online statistics. http://www.fao.org/faostat/
en/#data/FO. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Gluckman P, Wilsdon J (2016) From paradox to principles: where next for scientific advice to
governments? Palgrave Commun 2:16077. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.77
Gundersen P, Thybring EE, Nord-Larsen T et al (2021) Old-growth forest carbon sinks overesti-
mated. Nature 591:E21–E23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03266-z
Herajärvi H (2021) Science as a decision-support tool in forest policies. Silva Fenn 55(2). https://
doi.org/10.14214/sf.10566
Hetemäki L (2019) The role of science in forest policy – experiences by EFI. For Policy Econ
105:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.014
way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. From science to policy 5. European Forest
Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs05
Högberg, P, Ceder, LA, Astrup, R, Binkley, D, Dalsgaard, L, Egnell, G, Filipchuk, A, Genet, H,

et al (2021) Sustainable boreal forest management – challenges and opportunities for climate
change mitigation. Swedish Forest Agency, Report 2021/11. https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/
globalassets/om-oss/rapporter/rapporter-2021202020192018/rapport-2021-11-sustainable-
boreal-forest-management-challenges-and-opportunities-for-climate-change-mitigation-002.
pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2022
Hulme M, Lidskog R, White JM, Standring A (2020) Social scientific knowledge in times of crisis:
what climate change can learn from coronavirus (and vice versa). Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim
Chang 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.656
Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products. Can J For Res
48(12):1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC
special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land manage-
ment, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.
ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/210202-IPCCJ7230-SRCCL-Complete-BOOK-HRES.
pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
International Resource Panel (IRP) (2019) Global resources outlook 2019: natural resources
for the future we want. UN Environment Programme and IRP https://wedocsuneporg/han-
dle/2050011822/27517. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Kallio M, Solberg B, Käär L, Päivinen R (2018) Economic impacts of setting reference levels for
the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector. Forest Policy Econ 92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.010
Krumm F, Schuck A, Rigling A (eds) (2020) How to balance forestry and biodiversity conser-
vation. A view across Europe. European Forest Institute, Joensuu. https://doi.org/10.16904/
envidat.196
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-García S, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä J, Smyth C, Stern
T, Verkerk, H. (2018). Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitiga-
tion. From science to policy 7. European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs07
Luyssaert S, Marie G, Valade A, Chen Y-Y, Djomo SN, Ryder J, Otto J, Naudts K, Lanso AS,
Ghattas J, McGrath MJ (2018) Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives.
Nature 562:259–262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0577-1
Mauser H (ed) (2021) Key questions on forests in the EU. Knowledge to action 4. European Forest
Institute, Joensuu. https://doi.org/10.36333/k2a04
8:484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120484
Nature (2020) How Europe can fix its forests data gap. Editorial, 1 July 2020. https://www.nature.
com/articles/d41586-020-01848-x. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Palahí M, Hetemäki L, Potocnik J (2020a) Bioeconomy: the missing link to connect the dots in the
EU Green Deal. EURACTIV press release, 20 March 2020. European Forest Institute, Joensuu.
https://pr.euractiv.com/pr/bioeconomy-missing-link-connect-dots-eu-green-deal-202385.
Palahí M, Pantsar M, Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Potočnik J, Stuchtey M, Nasi R, Lovins H,
Giovannini E, Fioramonti L, Dixson-Declève S, McGlade J, Pickett K, Wilkinson R, Holmgren
J, Trebeck K, Wallis S, Ramage M, Berndes G, Akinnifesi FK, Ragnarsdóttir KV, Muys B,
Safonov G, Nobre AD, Nobre C, Ibañez D, Wijkman A, Snape J, Bas L (2020b) Investing
in nature as the true engine of our economy: a 10-point action plan for a circular bioecon-
omy of wellbeing. Knowledge to action 02. European Forest Institute, Joensuu. https://doi.
org/10.36333/k2a02
Palahí M, Valbuena R et al (2021) Concerns about reported harvests in European forests. Nature
592:E15–E17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03292-x
Parkhurst J (2017) The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance
of evidence. Routledge studies in governance and public policy. Routledge, Abingdon. ISBN
9781138939400. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68604/1/Parkhurst_The%20Politics%20of%20
Evidence.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Priebe J, Mårald E, Nordin A (2020) Narrow pasts and futures: how frames of sustainability transfor-
mation limit societal change. J Environ Stud Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00636-3
Ranacher L, Sedmik A, Schwarzbauer P (2020) Public perceptions of forestry and the forest-
based bioeconomy in the European Union. Knowledge to action 03. European Forest Institute,
Joensuu. https://doi.org/10.36333/k2a03
Simon F (2020) Commission under fire for including ‘carbon sinks’ into EU climate goals.
EURACTIVE 18 Sept 2020. https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/
commission-under-fire-for-including-carbon-sinks-into-eu-climate-goals/. Accessed 10
Jan 2021
UNESCO (2015) UNESCO science report: towards 2030. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000235406/PDF/235406eng.pdf.multi. Accessed 15 Feb 2021
Wernick IK, Ciais P, Fridman J et al (2021) Quantifying forest change in the European Union.
Nature 592:E13–E14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03293-w
Epilogue
Lauri Hetemäki
A forest is the opposite of the cake in the adage, which you either eat or have. In order to
have your forest cake, you must eat it; if you eat it properly, you get even more of it.
Egon Glesinger said this in 1949, but has it been evidenced in the last few decades
(Glesinger 1949)?1 Unfortunately, the world’s forest area has been declining––for
example, from 1990 to 2020 by 177 million ha––which is a little more than the total
forest area of the EU27 (159 million ha) (FAOSTAT 2021). This deforestation has
been taking place mainly in Africa and South America. But there are positive exam-
ples as well––with the help of appropriate forest management (among other fac-
tors), the EU27 has in the last three decades increased its forest area by 14 million
ha (10%), equivalent to almost the combined total land area of Austria, Belgium and
the Netherlands. The volume of wood in forests––the growing stock––has increased
even more rapidly, from about 19 to 27 billion m3, or 43% (Eurostat 2020). Yet, in
the last three decades, the EU27 has also used 13 billion m3 of roundwood for forest
products and energy (FAOSTAT 2021). Thus, it seems that Glesinger’s statement
holds true: the EU27 has both eaten the forest cake substantially, but at same time
has also made it much bigger.
But neither life, welfare nor the bioeconomy is primarily about quantity, but
rather about quality. Simple forest and roundwood statistics hide other factors that
we value and view as important in our forests, such as biodiversity, forest carbon
sinks, recreation, culture––in short, all the forest ecosystem services. Although in
the EU, the carbon stock in forests has been increasing over the past three decades,
climate policy targets require this to be increased even more in the future. Also,
there is significant agreement that biodiversity in the EU forests needs to be further
enhanced.
How to handle all the different and increasing demands for forests in a balanced
and sustainable way will remain a key policy and practical forest management issue
1
Glesinger, E. (1949) The Coming Age of Wood. Simon and Schuster, New York. http://www.
archive.org/details/comingageofwood00gles

Forest Ecosystems 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4
250 Epilogue
in the decades to come. In this context, this book has argued for the need for a holis-
tic approach, rather than sometimes-voiced partial actions and overly simplified
instructions. Moreover, we have explained that the climate-smart forestry approach,
as outlined in this book, tailored to regional circumstances, provides a useful way to
move forward. This will require abandoning some conventional thinking, such as
seeing the bioeconomy and climate mitigation or the bioeconomy and biodiversity,
as separate and always in opposition to each other. All of these are needed, and with
clever management, they can be mutually supporting. Properly cared for, forests are
great all-rounders––they produce climate benefits, biodiversity and recreation,
food, as well as one of the most versatile and useful raw materials on earth.
References
Eurostat (2020) Forests, forestry and logging. Statistics explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

statistics-explained/pdfscache/52476.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
FAOSTAT (2021) Forestry production and trade online statistics. http://www.fao.org/faostat/
en/#data/FO. Accessed 10 Jan 2021
Glossary
Accounting of GHG emissions Further calculations on reported GHG data, for

example, by comparing annual emissions and sinks to a baseline. This facilitates
tracking progress towards set mitigation targets.
Albedo Reflection of sunlight from surfaces. Darker colours reflect less sunlight
and absorb more energy, hence causing local warming.
Bioeconomy Many different definitions exists. One useful definition is from the
Global Bioeconomy Summit (GBS) 2015: “bioeconomy as the knowledge-
based production and utilization of biological resources, innovative biological
processes and principles to sustainably provide goods and services across all
economic sectors”. The bioeconomy therefore encompasses the traditional bio-
economy sectors, such as forestry, paper and wood products, as well as emerging
new industries, such as textiles, chemicals, new packaging and building prod-
ucts, biopharma, and also the services related to those products (research and
development, education, sales, marketing, extension, consulting, corporate gov-
ernance, etc.), and forest services (recreation, hunting, tourism, carbon storage,
biodiversity, etc.).
Biogenic carbon emissions Carbon dioxide emissions originating from biological
sources such as organic soils or tree biomass. Albeit the biogenic carbon dioxide
molecules are identical to those originating from fossil sedimentations, it can
be useful to track them separately for analytical purposes. This is because fossil
emissions lead to a permanent increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmo-
sphere, while biogenic carbon is eventually absorbed back to biomass when trees
grow, if a harvest site is not permanently deforested.
Carbon balance Balance between carbon sequestration and emissions at a given
moment or over a given period.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Green house gas. Human activities since the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concen-
tration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in
2021. The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this
high was over 3 million years ago.

Forest Ecosystems 42, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99206-4
252 Glossary
Carbon emission Carbon released in living processes and the decomposition of

organic matter with carbon.
Carbon leakage Carbon leakage is a form of rebound effect, typically referring to
a shift of emission intensive production from one region to another, for example,
to escape restrictive regulation. It can occur in a geographic (international carbon
leakage), product substitution (intersectoral carbon leakage) or temporal (inter-
temporal carbon leakage) dimension.
Carbon sequestration Removal and storage of carbon from the atmosphere in car-
bon sinks in forests through photosynthesis.
Carbon sink Forest ecosystem taking up more carbon than it emits.
Carbon source Forest ecosystem taking up less carbon than it emits.
Carbon stock (storage) Amount of carbon in the ecosystem or its compartments
(e.g. above- or below-ground, trees, soil etc.) at a given moment or over a
given period.
Carbon uptake Carbon fixed in photosynthesis and converted to different tissues
in growth of biomass.
Cascade use of wood Recovery and ensuing reuse, recycling, or incineration of
a forest-based product to extend the lifecycle of biomass in the techno-system.
Circular bioeconomy A circular bioeconomy builds on the mutual efforts of the
circular economy and bioeconomy concepts, which in many ways are inter-
linked. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has indicated that implement-
ing the concepts of a bioeconomy and circular economy together as a systemic
joint approach would improve resource efficiency and help reduce environmen-
tal pressures (EEA 2018). We further suggest that these two concepts, which
are often considered separately, could create marked synergies when applied as
a hybrid approach, making simultaneous use of both, as is the concept of the
circular bioeconomy.
Climate-smart forestry 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 the specific regional setting.
It builds upon three main objectives: (1) reducing and/or removing GHG emis-
sions; (2) adapting and building forest resilience to climate change; and (3) sus-
tainably increasing forest productivity and incomes.
Climate change adaptation Climate change adaptation is the process of adjusting
to current or expected climate change and its effects. For humans, adaptation
aims to moderate or avoid harm or minimize risks of harm, and exploit opportu-
nities; for natural systems, humans may intervene to help adjustment.
Climate change mitigation Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit
global warming and its related effects. This involves reductions in human emis-
sions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as well as activities that reduce their concen-
tration in the atmosphere.
Counterfactual scenario Depicts the state of a system, if a scenario would not
have been realised. For example, what the net carbon emissions of the sector
would have been, if the level of harvest had been different.
Glossary 253
Creative destruction The term was coined by Joseph Schumpeter in the 1940s. It
refers to the continuous process of entire industries rising and falling as a result
of established goods and services getting substituted by innovations and changes
in the operating environment.
Decomposition Carbon lost in the heterotrophic respiration.
Demand An economic principle depicting consumers’ willingness to purchase
goods and services. In practice it means the amount or value of a good consumed.
Derived demand For non-consumer products, the demand can be modelled by
assuming that the demand for a forest-based product is a function of the same
factors that affect the demand for the final uses of the product.
Displacement factor A measure for the amount of fossil GHG emissions avoided
per one unit of HWPs consumed in place of a specific alternative product.
Diversification Diversification refers to markets becoming more heterogeneous. In
the context of forest-based products, it refers to the declining trend in some of
the large volume product groups and the simultaneous emergence of new prod-
uct groups.
Ecosystem services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a United Nations
report describing the condition and trends of the world’s ecosystems, categorizes
ecosystem services as: (1) Provisioning Services such as food, clean water, fuel,
timber, and other goods; (2) Regulating Services such as climate, water, and
disease regulation as well as pollination; (3) Supporting Services such as soil
formation and nutrient cycling; and (4) Cultural Services such as educational,
aesthetic, and cultural heritage values, recreation, and tourism.
ESM Earth system models simulate all relevant aspects of the Earth system. They
include physical, chemical and biological processes, and therefore reach beyond
their predecessors, the global climate models (GCM), which just represented the
physical atmospheric and oceanic processes.
Forest sector A term used to describe forestry and forest industries. The Forest
Sector Outlook Studies (UNECE-FAO) have defined the forest sector as to cover
both, forest resources and the production, trade and consumption of forest prod-
ucts and services. Forest products include all the primary wood products manu-
factured in the forest processing sector (sawnwood, wood-based panels, paper
and paperboard) and the main inputs or partly processed products used in the
sector (roundwood, wood pulp, wood residues and recovered paper). Secondary
or value-added forest products (such as wooden doors, window frames and fur-
niture) are not covered.Forest-based sector: Is a more recent and more extensive
concept than the “forest sector”. In addition to forest sector, it includes the whole
value chains from basically all industries (or industry sectors) that use wood as
a main raw-material, such as forest based bioenergy, biochemicals, biotextiles,
construction, packages, hygiene products, etc.
Forest reference level A fixed target level for the forest carbon sink. It is used, for
example, in the accounting of emissions and sinks in the EU LULUCF regulation.
Functional unit A reference to which the inputs (raw materials and land use) and
outputs (emissions) of a good or service are calculated, such as a square meter of
a multi-storey building with a specific design and properties.
254 Glossary
GCM Global Climate Model

GDD Growing Degree Day
Green house gas A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits
radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor (H2O), car-
bon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3).
Gross primary production Carbon fixed in photosynthesis.
Growing stock Growing stock is the volume of all living trees and excludes
smaller branches, twigs, foliage and roots. It is measured in cubic metres (m³)
over bark and includes trees of more than a given size (in terms of diameter) at
breast height (Eurostat, “Forestry in the EU and the world. A Statistical Portrait”
(2011)).
Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) The term Harvested Wood Product is com-
monly used in technical literature and policy documents, for example, by the
IPCC and UNFCCC when referring to changes in the carbon storage of wood-
based products in GHG reporting. It can be used as a synonym for forest-based
products.
Humus Dead organic matter in soil having a non-identifiable origin.
HWP pool All forest-based products present in the techno sphere.
IPBES The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an independent intergovernmental body estab-
lished by States to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and
ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-
term human well-being and sustainable development. It was established in 2012
by 94 Governments. It is not a United Nations body. However, at the request of
the IPBES Plenary and with the authorization of the UNEP Governing Council
in 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provides secre-
tariat services to IPBES.
Industrial prefabrication Off-site manufacturing of elements and components,
which allows combining several work phases in a single off-site location in stan-
dardised, conveyor belt type of conditions
Inferior good The demand for an inferior good decreases when income increases,
and increases when income decreases
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the
United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, the IPCC has 195 Member coun-
tries. The IPCC prepares comprehensive Assessment Reports about the state
of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its
impacts and future risks, and options for reducing the rate at which climate
change is taking place.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) The practice of assessing the environmental impacts
of products or processes using standardised indicators.
Litter Dead organic matter in soil having an identifiable origin (e.g. needle litter).
Glossary 255
LULUCF sector Land use, land use change and forestry sector. It is one of the sec-
tors in the classification of human activities in GHG reporting, comprising forest
land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, settlements and other land.
Market Markets consist of suppliers and consumers of a given product. The prices
and quantities of products are in equilibrium as a consequence of intersecting
supply and demand curves.
Net Annual Increment (NAI) Average annual volume over the given reference
period of gross increment less that of natural losses on all trees to a minimum
diameter of 0 cm (d.b.h.). Source: http://www.unece.org/forests/fra/definit.
html#Net%20annual.
Net ecosystem exchange (NEE) A measure of the net exchange of CO2 between
an ecosystem and the atmosphere.
Net ecosystem production Heterotrophic respiration deducted from net primary
production
Net primary production Carbon lost in plant respiration deducted from gross pri-
mary production.
New forest-based products Products in the introduction, growth or renewal phase
of the product life cycle. The demand for new forest-based products is mainly
determined by factors unrelated to economic activity.
No-regret pathway A scenario that depicts measures for achieving desired out-
comes with minimum trade-offs between different objectives.
Normal good The demand for a normal good increases when income increases,
and decreases when income decreases
Operating environment An umbrella term for the external factors influencing the
markets of a given industry, often categorised into political, economic, social,
technological, environmental and legal factors.
Outlook study Outcome of a foresight exercise that applies various futures
research methods.
Price elasticity A unit change in demand as a result of a unit change in the price of
a given good. It can be perceived as the slope of the demand curve. Elasticities
can also be determined for various demand shifters such as income.
Product lifecycle The entire lifespan of a product from introduction to saturation
to decline in demand. Note the difference between the lifespan of a single prod-
uct from production to disposal (used in life cycle assessment) and the lifespan
of a product as a part of an industry (used in economics).
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway is a greenhouse gas concentration tra-
jectory adopted by the IPCC.
Rebound effect An additional unit of a product consumed does not lead to a unit
reduction in other consumption, due to indirect impacts to e.g. available income.
Reporting of GHG emissions Calculation and publication of the emissions and
sinks of all sectors, following jointly agreed technical guidance. Reporting of
GHG emissions: See Chap. 8.
Resilience In science, there are many dimensions of resilience concept. For
example, ecological resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a
perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly. Such
256 Glossary
perturbations and disturbances can include events such as fires, flooding, wind-
storms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation,
pesticide sprayed in forests, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal spe-
cies. Climate resilience is the ability of systems to recover from climate change.
Roundwood Wood in its natural state as felled, with or without bark. It may be
round, split, roughly squared or in other forms. Roundwood can be used for
industrial purposes, either in its round form (e.g. as transmission poles or piling)
or as raw material to be processed into industrial products such as sawn wood,
panel products or pulp; or it can be used for energy purposes (fuel wood).
Structural change A significant and permanent change in the structure of an
industry, such as a change in the shares of sub-industries from the total produc-
tion. If caused by substitution, a structural change can be detected by a statistical
test for income elasticity.
Substitute product See Chap. 4.2.2.1 glossary
Substitution impact Avoided fossil emissions, when wood products are used in
place of more fossil emission intensive products. Note that this does not signify
the climate change mitigation potential of forest-based products, but is an impor-
tant determinant for it.
Substitution An increase in demand for one good in place of another good. A per-
fect substitute provides interchangeable value or service, either in terms of eco-
nomic utility or technical function.
Sustainability The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World
Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the abil-
ity of future generations to meet their own needs.” In the charter for the UCLA
Sustainability Committee, sustainability is defined as: “the integration of envi-
ronmental health, social equity and economic vitality in order to create thriving,
healthy, diverse and resilient communities for this generation and generations to
come. The practice of sustainability recognizes how these issues are intercon-
nected and requires a systems approach and an acknowledgement of complexity.”
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) The Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) or Global Goals are a collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed
to be a blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. The
SDGs were set up in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly and are
intended to be achieved by the year 2030. They are included in a UN Resolution
called the 2030 Agenda or what is colloquially known as Agenda 2030.
Techno sphere (techno-system) A generic concept for differentiating the system
boundaries between ecosystems and man-made systems. It includes all products
and processes outside ecosystems and may refer to the entire lifespan of forest-
based products after harvesting.
Trend forecast A simplistic depiction of the future direction of a time series, if it
would develop along the lines of a selected historical period. It should not neces-
sarily be regarded as a prediction, but a helpful baseline, against which possible
deviations from the trend can be assessed.
Glossary 257
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a UN

body that facilitates the process under which global climate agreements such as
the Paris Agreement are negotiated among governments.
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme is responsible for coordinating
the UN’s environmental activities and assisting developing countries in imple-
menting environmentally sound policies and practices.
Value chain A value chain describes the full range of activities which are required
to bring a product or service from conception, through the different phases of
production (involving a combination of physical trans-formation and the input
of various producer services), delivery to final consumer, and final disposal
after use.
WMO World Meteorological Organization is a specialized agency of the United
Nations and responsible for promoting international cooperation on atmospheric
science, climatology, hydrology and geophysics.

Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Forest Ecosystems

ISSN 1568-1319 ISSN 2352-3956 (electronic)

European Forest Institute (EFI) Marc Palahí

1 Forest Bioeconomy, Climate Change

About the Editors

Lauri Hetemäki is Professor of Practice at the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,

Jyrki Kangas is Professor of Forest Bioeconomy at the University of Eastern

Heli Peltola is Professor of Silvicultural Sciences at the Faculty of Science and

Mikko Laapas Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Lauri Hetemäki and Jyrki Kangas

Abstract In order to realise Agenda 2030, or the United Nations’ Sustainable

Keywords Circular bioeconomy · Transformation · Forests · Climate change

© The Author(s) 2022 1

Table 1.2 Forest-based-sector climate-mitigation impacts and actions to strengthen these

1.2 What Are the Future Challenges and Opportunities?

Fig. 1.1 Illustration of a forest-based, bioeconomic production-possibility frontier, with trade-offs

production-­possibility frontiers––indicate the maximal combination of outputs (e.g.

1.3 Outline of the Book

Box 1.1 Forest Bioeconomy in the EU

Box 1.1 (continued)

Bioeconomy's share of GDP Bioeconomy's share of employees

Box 1.1 (continued)

Box 1.1 (continued)

Value added Number of people employed

The definition of bioeconomy and its boundaries in relation to traditional

Box 1.1 (continued)

Industrial roundwood Wood fuel

Box 1.1 (continued)

Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J et al (2020) Forest biodi-

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/

Lauri Hetemäki and Jyri Seppälä

Abstract ‘Planetary boundaries’ is a concept that has been introduced by Earth

Keywords Planetray boundaries · Environment · Climate change · Green deal ·

2.1 The Period of Wakening to Planetary Boundaries

© The Author(s) 2022 19

2.2 Climate Change as the Deciding Phenomenon

Moreover, the science fundamentals clearly indicate that greenhouse gases

2.3 The European Green Deal and the Forest-Based Sector

circular and low-carbon industries. The emerging bioeconomy could be a catalyst

In summary, the bioeconomy, when managed in a sustainable way, has major

2.4 Diverse Role of Forests and Forest-Based Products

As indicated above, the EDG views EU forests as mainly contributing to climate

Index 2000 = 100

Biber P, Felton A, Nieuwenhuis M, Lindbladh M, Black K, Bahýl J et al (2020) Forest biodi-

Hurmekoski E, Jonsson R, Korhonen J, Jänis J, Mäkinen M, Leskinen P, Hetemäki L (2018)

dots-­eu-­green-­deal-­202385 and European Forest Institute blog: https://blog.efi.int/bioeconomy-­

Ari Venäläinen, Kimmo Ruosteenoja, Ilari Lehtonen, Mikko Laapas,

Keywords Adaptive management · European forests · Forest resilience · Global

A. Venäläinen (*) · K. Ruosteenoja · I. Lehtonen · M. Laapas

© The Author(s) 2022 33

3.1 Global Climate Change

3.1.1 Global Climate Change in the Past

Box 3.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of

3.1.2 Assessment of Future Global Climate Change

partially cancel the influence of global warming. Precipitation is projected to

Box 3.2 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

3.1.3 Projected Climate Change in Europe

3.2 Climate Change Impacts on Forests and Forestry

3.2.1 Forest Growth and Dynamics

European Forest Institute (EFI) Marc Palahí

1 Forest Bioeconomy, Climate Change

1.2 What Are the Future Challenges and Opportunities?

production-possibility frontiers––indicate the maximal combination of outputs (e.g.

1.3 Outline of the Book

2.1 The Period of Wakening to Planetary Boundaries

2.2 Climate Change as the Deciding Phenomenon

2.3 The European Green Deal and the Forest-Based Sector

2.4 Diverse Role of Forests and Forest-Based Products

dots-eu-green-deal-202385 and European Forest Institute blog: https://blog.efi.int/bioeconomy-

3.1 Global Climate Change

3.1.1 Global Climate Change in the Past

3.1.2 Assessment of Future Global Climate Change

3.1.3 Projected Climate Change in Europe

3.2 Climate Change Impacts on Forests and Forestry

3.2.1 Forest Growth and Dynamics

3.2.2.1 Wind and Snow Damage

3.2.2.2 Drought and Forest Fires

3.2.3.1 European Spruce Bark Beetle Outbreaks

3.2.3.2 Other Biotic Threats to Forest Health

3.3 Climate Change, Adaptation and Risk Management

4.1 Background: Forest-Based Sector Outlook Studies

4.2 Forest-Based-Products Markets in the Bioeconomy Era

4.2.2 Characterising the Structural Change in Demand

4.2.2.1 Demand Elasticity and Substitution

4.2.3.1 Defining New Forest-Based Products

4.2.3.4 Biorefining––Biochemical and Biofuel Markets

4.2.3.5 Plastics and Packaging Markets

4.2.3.6 Impacts of New Forest-Based Products on the Forest-Based Sector

4.3 Outlook for the Demand for a Forest-Based Bioeconomy

5.1 European Forests and the Utilisation of Biomass

5.2 Availability of Forest Biomass

5.3 Outlook for Forest Biomass Availability

6.1 Current Carbon Storage and Sink