An integrated MCDA software application for forest planning : a case study in southwestern Sweden

Forest planning in Sweden today translates not only into planning of timber production, but also for the provision of other functions and services. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods provide a way to take also non-monetary values into account in planning. The purpose of this study was to gain experience on how to use a forest decision support system combined with an MCDA tool in practical forestry. We used a new forest planning tool, PlanWise, which includes an integrated MCDA module, PlanEval. Using the software, the decision maker can compare different forest plans and evaluate them against his/her objectives in a structured and analytical manner. The analysis thus provides a ranking of the alternatives based on the individual preferences of the decision maker. PlanEval and the MCDA planning process are described in a case study, where the manager of a forest estate in southwestern Sweden used the program to compare different forest plans made for the estate. In the paper, we analyze possibilities and challenges of this approach and identify problems such as the adherence to formal requirements of MCDA techniques and the difficulty of comparing maps. Possibilities to expedite an MCDA planning process further are also discussed. The findings confirm that integration of an MCDA tool with a forest decision support system is valuable, but requires expert assistance to be successful

Combining Climate Change Mitigation Scenarios with Current Forest Owner Behavior: A Scenario Study from a Region in Southern Sweden

This study investigates the need for change of current forest management approaches in a southern Swedish region within the context of future climate change mitigation through empirically derived projections, rather than forest management according to silvicultural guidelines. Scenarios indicate that climate change mitigation will increase global wood demand. This might call for adjustments of well-established management approaches. This study investigates to what extent increasing wood demands in three climate change mitigation scenarios can be satisfied with current forest management approaches of different intensities in a southern Swedish region. Forest management practices in Kronoberg County were mapped through interviews, statistics, and desk research and were translated into five different management strategies with different intensities regulating management at the property level. The consequences of current practices, as well as their intensification, were analyzed with the Heureka Planwise forest planning system in combination with a specially developed forest owner decision simulator. Projections were done over a 100-year period under three climate change mitigation scenarios developed with the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIUM). Current management practices could meet scenario demands during the first 20 years. This was followed by a shortage of wood during two periods in all scenarios unless rotations were reduced. In a longer timeframe, the wood demands were projected to be easily satisfied in the less ambitious climate change mitigation scenarios. In contrast, the demand in the ambitious mitigation scenario could not be met with current management practices, not even if all owners managed their production forests at the intensive extreme of current management approaches. The climate change mitigation scenarios provide very different trajectories with respect to future drivers of forest management. Our results indicate that with less ambitious mitigation efforts, the relatively intensive practices in the study region can be softened while ambitious mitigation might push for further intensification

Technical corrections for the forest reference levels under the LULUCF regulation (EU) 2018/841

Regulation (EU) 2018/841 sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the years 2021-2030. In the first compliance period 2021-2025, the accounting for managed forest land is made by comparing the reported net emissions to a projected forest reference level (FRL). The compliance check will take place based on the Member State greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory submissions of March 2027. As the GHG inventories improve in data and methodologies, there may be a need to apply technical corrections (TC) to the national FRLs to make sure that the projected FRL and the GHG reporting in 2027 are comparable. In this report, we reflect on the typical cases in which the need for a TC arises and on situations that do not lead to a TC.JRC.D.1 - Forests and Bio-Econom

The Role of Forests in Climate Change Mitigation: The EU Context

The European Union (EU) aims at reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. Within the land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector, forestry will contribute to this target with CO2 sink, harvested wood products (HWP), and use of wood for material or energy substitution. Despite the fact that the forest sink currently offsets about 9% of the total EU GHG emissions, evaluating its future mitigation potential is challenging because of the complex interactions between human and natural impacts on forest growth and carbon accumulation. The Regulation (EU) 2018/841 has improved robustness, accuracy, and credibility of the accounting of GHG emissions and removals in the LULUCF sector. For the forest sector, the accounting is based on the Forest Reference Level (FRL), i.e., a projected country-specific value of GHG emissions and removals against which the actual GHG emissions and removals will be compared. The resulting difference will count toward the EU GHG target for the period 2021–2030. Here, we provide an overview of the contribution of forests and HWP to the EU carbon sink for the period 2021–2025 (proposed FRLs) and focus on the contribution of mountain forests to the EU carbon sink, through exploring co-benefits and adverse side effects between climate regulation and other ecosystem services

Linking public and private greenhouse gas inventories in the land use sector

For the past 30 years, national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory compilers have relied on science-based guidelines and tools to estimate GHG fluxes and carbon stocks in the land use sector, with the goal of contributing towards climate change mitigation action. In the past 10-15 years, several frameworks, standards, tools, and rulebooks have emerged to support the private sector to develop their GHG Inventories, given the significant footprints of many corporations. Lately, there has been a booming of voluntary 2050 net-zero commitments and emissions reduction targets from the corporate world, which frequently count on land investments and/or rely on land mitigation as part of their carbon footprint reduction strategies. Initiatives like the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Science Based Targets Initiative are among the most adopted by companies who wish to measure and disclose emissions, mitigation targets and trajectories. Recently the EU Green Taxonomy has introduced rules and criteria on how the financial sector and corporations must report and disclose their GHG fluxes and carbon stocks from their related land investments. Private and public rules are now starting to converge. Understanding the differences and the reasons behind them will be key to ensure the credibility of the data from multi-scale GHG Inventories and nested land climate action.JRC.D.1 - Forests and Bio-Econom

Moving to higher tiers for soil carbon

The 2023 revised LULUCF regulation will require Tier 2 methods for monitoring all land and carbon pools by the reporting of the 2026 emission year, and then later Tier 3 methods for a subset of land including, among others, forests and peatlands that undergo restoration or protection for nature directives. This requirement is particularly challenging for soil carbon for which Tier 1 is still used by many Member States for several land categories. This document offers answers to frequently arising questions in the topic of higher methodological tiers for soil carbon pool monitoring, as well as practical advice on how to implement them. Regarding Tier 2, we suggest a step by step method to estimate reference carbon stock (SOCref) and carbon stock modifying factors (eg. FLU) using national datasets on soil carbon or international databases such as the LUCAS soil survey. We also propose a list of FMG emission factors for agricultural practices based on a literature review for the temperate zone. Regarding Tier 3, we distinguish between measurement-based methods (repeated soil inventories) and model-based methods. Measurement-based methods tend to be costly, but they are necessary as no model can guarantee an accurate national total in a context of environmental and management changes. Model-based methods allow to disentangle the different drivers of soil carbon changes and reduce the number of repeated measurements needed. Their evaluation, in line with the IPCC guidelines, is also discussed.JRC.D.1 - Forests and Bio-Econom

Trends in the EU bioeconomy - update 2024

Policy monitoring frameworks allow decision makers to assess the performance and progress towards specific strategic objectives that reflect an overall vision. The bioeconomy consists of complex social, economic, and environmental systems. The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System was developed by the JRC to fulfil the need for a holistic policy monitoring framework and track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy through relevant indicators. The first assessment based on the EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System was published in early 2023. This report is an updated assessment of the EU bioeconomy development to date, using the data available as of September 2024.JRC.D.1 - Forests and Bio-Econom

Forest reference levels under Regulation (EU) 2018/841 for the period 2021-2025

Regulation (EU) 2018/841 (‘LULUCF regulation’) sets the accounting rules for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the EU for 2021–2030, i.e. how the emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from LULUCF will be counted towards the climate targets. The LULUCF regulation is part of the EU’s commitment to reduce overall emissions by at least 40% by 2030 under the Climate and Energy framework. Every Member State must balance its accounted greenhouse gas emissions on the LULUCF sector by an equal amount of accounted greenhouse gas removals. Possible surplus removals, under certain conditions and up to an overall total of 280 Mt CO2e, may be used to compensate emissions from the sectors covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation. The technically most complex part of the LULUCF regulation is the set of accounting rules for managed forest land, which are based on a projected Forest Reference Level (FRL), estimated nationally by each EU Member State. The FRL is a benchmark level against which future net emissions from forests are accounted for. In its essence, the FRL is a projection of the net emissions from managed forest land in 2021—2030 (divided into two compliance periods, 2021—2025 and 2026—2030), assuming that the forest management practices had continued similar to the practices in the reference period 2000—2009. This way, the FRL provides a means to account for the impact of policy changes on the emissions and removals from forests, while factoring out the impact of age-related dynamics in the forests. The FRLs for the 2021—2025 period are reported as a part of National Forestry Accounting Plans (NFAPs). After a thorough assessment by the European Commission and a dedicated Expert Group in 2019 and 2020, these FRLs are due to be laid down in a delegated act adopted by the Commission by the end of October 2020. This report outlines the main technical findings of the assessment of the Member States’ proposed FRLs, and complements the forthcoming Commission Staff Working Document (2020) accompanying the delegated act. The assessment found that the Member States had generally followed the principles and criteria laid out in the LULUCF regulation. The NFAPs provide a wealth of information on the forests and forest management practices in the Member States – some of which has not been available for the international community before – and in general include the elements required by the LULUCF regulation. All Member States projected the development of the forest net emissions for 2021—2025 as a continuation of the historical management practices, therefore excluding assumptions on policy development. While the submissions by the Member States were in general detailed and carefully prepared, the assessment identified in several cases minor issues that will need to be amended before the compliance check. The most common issues are related to methodological inconsistencies between carbon pools, greenhouse gases or forest area included in the FRL and those reported in the national greenhouse gas inventories. Some of these mismatches have already been amended by the Member States through Addenda or Corrigenda to the NFAPs. The remaining inconsistencies will be addressed through technical corrections to the FRLs at the end of the compliance period and therefore do not impair the reliability of the FRL as an accounting baseline. For five Member States, the assessment resulted in a recalculation of the Member State-proposed FRL by the Commission. In numerical terms, the sum of the Member States’ FRLs (incl. the United Kingdom) in the delegated act is a projected sink of -337 Mt CO2 y-1 for the period 2021–2025. This projection is about 18% lower than the sink of -413 Mt CO2 y-1 reported by the EU 2019 greenhouse gas inventory on managed forest land for the period 2000—2009 (EEA 2019). The FRL projection is associated with a projected increase of harvest by about 19% over the same period, due to age-related effects. It is noteworthy that the FRLs project sustainable forest management practices as documented in the period 2000–2009, taking into account dynamic age-related forest characteristics, and do not represent an expected sink or expected harvest levels. Instead, the FRLs laid out in the delegated act provide a robust and trustworthy counterfactual for accounting the impact of mitigation actions on emissions and removals from managed forest land in the first compliance period 2021—2025.JRC.D.1 - Bio-econom

Improved GHG inventories for better forest policies: JRC work in 2020-2023

This report describes the work under AA “Forest Monitoring for Policies”, Lot 1 (Improved GHG Inventories for better Forest Policies). Within task “thematic policy action development”, the JRC clarified connections between the accounting in the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF) and other sectors, such as trade-offs and synergies among mitigation options. It highlighted an ongoing rapid decline of EU forest sink, which may hamper the fulfilment of the EU climate targets and needs rapid actions to be stopped and reversed. The JRC also made substantial improvements in flexibility and speed to the Carbon Budget Model (CBM), making it more fit to address future modelling needs. Under task “greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory development”, the JRC conducted extensive work on the annual EU LULUCF GHG inventory until 2022, supporting the MS in the quality and completeness of GHG inventories. However, GHG inventory gap analyses for each MS show that there is still room for significant improvement, especially in the light of the new reporting requirements under the latest EU LULUCF legislations. On task “tracking progress and compliance”, the JRC played a pivotal role in the adoption of Forest Reference Levels for 2021-2025 and supported the implementation of EU reporting and accounting requirements. Overall, confidence in LULUCF estimates has increased, thanks to the efforts by GHG inventory compilers, the EU/UN review process, and knowledge-sharing such as the annual JRC LULUCF workshops.JRC.D.1 - Forests and Bio-Econom