Reconciling the EU forest, biodiversity, and climate strategies.

Forests provide important ecosystem services (ESs), including climate change mitigation, local climate regulation, habitat for biodiversity, wood and non-wood products, energy, and recreation. Simultaneously, forests are increasingly affected by climate change and need to be adapted to future environmental conditions. Current legislation, including the European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy, EU Forest Strategy, and national laws, aims to protect forest landscapes, enhance ESs, adapt forests to climate change, and leverage forest products for climate change mitigation and the bioeconomy. However, reconciling all these competing demands poses a tremendous task for policymakers, forest managers, conservation agencies, and other stakeholders, especially given the uncertainty associated with future climate impacts. Here, we used process-based ecosystem modeling and robust multi-criteria optimization to develop forest management portfolios that provide multiple ESs across a wide range of climate scenarios. We included constraints to strictly protect 10% of Europe's land area and to provide stable harvest levels under every climate scenario. The optimization showed only limited options to improve ES provision within these constraints. Consequently, management portfolios suffered from low diversity, which contradicts the goal of multi-functionality and exposes regions to significant risk due to a lack of risk diversification. Additionally, certain regions, especially those in the north, would need to prioritize timber provision to compensate for reduced harvests elsewhere. This conflicts with EU LULUCF targets for increased forest carbon sinks in all member states and prevents an equal distribution of strictly protected areas, introducing a bias as to which forest ecosystems are more protected than others. Thus, coordinated strategies at the European level are imperative to address these challenges effectively. We suggest that the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, EU Forest Strategy, and targets for forest carbon sinks require complementary measures to alleviate the conflicting demands on forests.

Quantifying the impact of key factors on the carbon mitigation potential of managed temperate forests.

BACKGROUND: Forests mitigate climate change by reducing atmospheric CO 2 -concentrations through the carbon sink in the forest and in wood products, and substitution effects when wood products replace carbon-intensive materials and fuels. Quantifying the carbon mitigation potential of forests is highly challenging due to the influence of multiple important factors such as forest age and type, climate change and associated natural disturbances, harvest intensities, wood usage patterns, salvage logging practices, and the carbon-intensity of substituted products. Here, we developed a framework to quantify the impact of these factors through factorial simulation experiments with an ecosystem model at the example of central European (Bavarian) forests. RESULTS: Our simulations showed higher mitigation potentials of young forests compared to mature forests, and similar ones in broad-leaved and needle-leaved forests. Long-lived wood products significantly contributed to mitigation, particularly in needle-leaved forests due to their wood product portfolio, and increased material usage of wood showed considerable climate benefits. Consequently, the ongoing conversion of needle-leaved to more broad-leaved forests should be accompanied by the promotion of long-lived products from broad-leaved species to maintain the product sink. Climate change (especially increasing disturbances) and decarbonization were among the most critical factors influencing mitigation potentials and introduced substantial uncertainty. Nevertheless, until 2050 this uncertainty was narrow enough to derive robust findings. For instance, reducing harvest intensities enhanced the carbon sink in our simulations, but diminished substitution effects, leading to a decreased total mitigation potential until 2050. However, when considering longer time horizons (i.e. until 2100), substitution effects became low enough in our simulations due to expected decarbonization such that decreasing harvests often seemed the more favorable solution. CONCLUSION: Our results underscore the need to tailor mitigation strategies to the specific conditions of different forest sites. Furthermore, considering substitution effects, and thoroughly assessing the amount of avoided emissions by using wood products, is critical to determine mitigation potentials. While short-term recommendations are possible, we suggest risk diversification and methodologies like robust optimization to address increasing uncertainties from climate change and decarbonization paces past 2050. Finally, curbing emissions reduces the threat of climate change on forests, safeguarding their carbon sink and ecosystem services.