• Energy Research

Forests provide a range of vital services to society and are critical habitats for biodiversity, holding inherent multifunctionality. While traditionally viewed as a byproduct of production-focused forestry, today's forest ecosystem services and biodiversity (FESB) play an essential role in several sectoral policies’ needs. Achieving policy objectives requires careful management considering the interplay of services, influenced by regional aspects and climate. Here, we examined the multifunctionality gap caused by these factors through simulation of forest management and multi-objective optimization methods across different regions - Finland, Norway, Sweden and Germany (Bavaria). To accomplish this, we tested diverse management regimes (productivity-oriented silviculture, several continuous cover forestry regimes and set asides), two climate scenarios (current and RCP 4.5) and three policy strategies (National Forest, Biodiversity and Bioeconomy Strategies). For each combination we calculated a multifunctionality metric at the landscape scale based on 5 FESB classes (biodiversity conservation, bioenergy, climate regulation, wood, water and recreation). In Germany and Norway, maximum multifunctionality was achieved by increasing the proportion of set-asides and proportionally decreasing the rest of management regimes. In Finland, maximum MF would instead require that policies address greater diversity in management, while in Sweden, the pattern was slightly different but similar to Finland. Regarding the climate scenarios, we observed that only for Sweden the difference in the provision of FESB was significant. Finally, the highest overall potential multifunctionality was observed for Sweden (National Forest scenario, with a value of 0.94 for the normalized multifunctionality metric), followed by Germany (National Forest scenario, 0.83), Finland (Bioeconomy scenario, 0.81) and Norway (National Forest scenario, 0.71). The results highlight the challenges of maximizing multifunctionality and underscore the significant influence of country-specific policies and climate change on forest management. To achieve the highest multifunctionality, strategies must be tailored to specific national landscapes, acknowledging both synergistic and conflicting FESB.

The repository contains the data and codes supporting the findings of the study: Climate targets in European timber-producing countries conflict with goals on forest ecosystem services and biodiversity, which can be found in the zip file "euclimate_vs_natpolicy-main.zip". Further, the repository includes the raw forest simulation data used as input for the multi-objective optimizations and the raw optimization outputs of each study region. The codes to run the national optimization can be retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6631109. Abstract: The European Union (EU) set clear climate change mitigation targets to reach climate neutrality, accounting for forests and their woody biomass resources. We investigated the consequences of increased harvest demands resulting from EU climate targets. We analysed the impacts on national policy objectives for forest ecosystem services and biodiversity through empirical forest simulation and multi-objective optimization methods. We show that key European timber-producing countries – Finland, Sweden, Germany (Bavaria) – cannot fulfil the increased harvest demands linked to the ambitious 1.5°C target. Potentials for harvest increase only exists in the studied region Norway. However, focusing on EU climate targets conflicts with several national policies and causes adverse effects on multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity. We argue that the role of forests and their timber resources in achieving climate targets and societal decarbonization should not be overstated. Our study provides insight for other European countries challenged by conflicting policies and supports policymakers.

AbstractForests provide a wide variety of ecosystem services (ES) to society. The boreal biome is experiencing the highest rates of warming on the planet and increasing demand for forest products. To foresee how to maximize the adaptation of boreal forests to future warmer conditions and growing demands of forest products, we need a better understanding of the relative importance of forest management and climate change on the supply of ecosystem services. Here, using Finland as a boreal forest case study, we assessed the potential supply of a wide range of ES (timber, bilberry, cowberry, mushrooms, carbon storage, scenic beauty, species habitat availability and deadwood) given seven management regimes and four climate change scenarios. We used the forest simulator SIMO to project forest dynamics for 100 years into the future (2016–2116) and estimate the potential supply of each service using published models. Then, we tested the relative importance of management and climate change as drivers of the future supply of these services using generalized linear mixed models. Our results show that the effects of management on the future supply of these ES were, on average, 11 times higher than the effects of climate change across all services, but greatly differed among them (from 0.53 to 24 times higher for timber and cowberry, respectively). Notably, the importance of these drivers substantially differed among biogeographical zones within the boreal biome. The effects of climate change were 1.6 times higher in northern Finland than in southern Finland, whereas the effects of management were the opposite—they were three times higher in the south compared to the north. We conclude that new guidelines for adapting forests to global change should account for regional differences and the variation in the effects of climate change and management on different forest ES.

AbstractCOVID-19 crisis has emphasized how poorly prepared humanity is to cope with global disasters. However, this crisis also offers a unique opportunity to move towards a more sustainable and equitable future. Here, we identify the underlying environmental, social, and economic chronic causes of the COVID-19 crisis. We argue in favour of a holistic view to initiate a socio-economic transition to improve the prospects for global sustainability and human well-being. Alternative approaches to “Business-As-Usual” for guiding the transition are already available for implementation. Yet, to ensure a successful and just transition, we need to change our priorities towards environmental integrity and well-being. This necessarily means environmental justice, a different worldview and a closer relationship with nature.

Various national policies guide forest use, but often with competing policy objectives leading to divergent management paradigms. Incoherent policies may negatively impact the sustainable provision of forest ecosystem services (FES), and forest multifunctionality. There is uncertainty among policymakers about the impacts of policies on the real world. We translated the policy documents of Finland into scenarios including the quantitative demands for FES, representing: the national forest strategy (NFS), the biodiversity strategy (BDS), and the bioeconomy strategy (BES). We simulated a Finland-wide systematic sample of forest stands with alternative management regimes and climate change. Finally, we used multi-objective optimization to identify the combination of management regimes matching best with each policy scenario and analysed their long-term effects on FES.The NFS scenario proved to be the most multifunctional, targeting the highest number of FES, while the BES had the lowest FES targets. However, the NFS was strongly oriented towards the value chain of wood and bioenergy and had a dominating economic growth target, which caused strong within-policy conflicts and hindered reaching biodiversity targets. The BDS and BES scenarios were instead more consistent but showed either sustainability gaps in terms of providing timber resources (BDS) or no improvements in forest biodiversity (BES). All policy scenarios resulted in forest management programs dominated by continuous cover forestry, set-aside areas, and intensive management zones, with proportions depending on the policy focus. Our results highlight for the first time the conflicts among national sectoral policies in terms of management requirements and effects on forest multifunctionality. The outcomes provide leverage points for policymakers to increase coherence among future policies and improve implementation of multiple uses of forests.

AbstractMitigating future forest risks, safeguarding timber revenues and improving biodiversity are key considerations for current boreal forest management. Alternatives to rotation forestry likely have an important role, but how they will perform under a changing climate remains unclear. We used a boreal forest growth simulator to explore how variations on traditional clear-cutting, in rotation length, thinning intensity, and increasing number of remaining trees after final harvest (green tree retention), and on extent of continuous cover forestry will affect stand-level probability of wind damage, timber production, deadwood volume, and habitats for forest species. We used business-as-usual rotation forestry as a baseline and compared alternative management adaptations under the reference and two climate change scenarios. Climate change increased overall timber production and had lower impacts on biodiversity compared to management adaptations. Shortening the rotation length reduced the probability of wind damage compared to business-as-usual, but also decreased both deadwood volume and suitable habitats for our focal species. Continuous cover forestry, and management with refraining from thinnings, and extension of rotation length represent complementary approaches benefiting biodiversity, with respective effects of improving timber revenues, reducing wind damage risk, and benefiting old-growth forest structures. However, extensive application of rotation length shortening to mitigate wind damage risk may be detrimental for forest biodiversity. To safeguard forest biodiversity over the landscape, shortening of the rotation length could be complemented with widespread application of regimes promoting old-growth forest structures.

European countries have national sectoral polices to regulate and promote the provision of a wide range of forest ecosystems services (FES). However, potential incoherencies among these policies can negatively affect the efficient provision of FES. In this work, we evaluated the coherence among three national policies from Germany and their ability to effectively provide FES in the future: the Forest Strategy 2020 (FS), the National Strategy on Biological Diversity (BDS), and the German National Policy Strategy on Bioeconomy (BES). Using forest inventory data from the Federal State of Bavaria, we simulated a range of forest management options under three climate trajectories for 100 years into the future (2012–2112). Then, with multi-objective optimization, we translated each policy into a specific scenario and identified the best combination of management regimes that maximizes the targets defined in each policy scenario. The three policies were vague in the definition of FES. The FS was the most comprehensive policy aiming for a higher degree of multifunctionality, whereas the BES and BDS focused on less FES. The FS and the BDS showed the highest coherence, while the BES showed a stronger focus on timber production. As a result, the optimal management programs of FS and BDS showed high integration, with a dominance of Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), and certain shares of set asides. Climate change led to an increase of set aside areas due to increased productivity. In the BES, the share of land among management regimes was strongly segregated between CCF and rotation forestry. Our policy coherence analysis showed that achieving a multifunctional provision of FES requires policy coherence, fostering a diverse management of the landscape that mainly takes advantage of integrative management, like CCF, but also segregates important parts of the landscape for intensive use and set asides. Nevertheless, the current high standing volumes in Bavaria will pose an additional risk to implement such management. peerReviewed