Future wood demands and ecosystem services trade-offs: A policy analysis in Norway

Vergarechea, M., Astrup, R., Fischer, C., Øistad, K., Blattert, C., Hartikainen, M., Eyvindson, K., Di Fulvio, F., Forsell, N., Burgas, D., Toraño-Caicoya, A., Mönkkönen, M., & Antón-Fernández, C. (2023). Future wood demands and ecosystem services trade-offs: A policy analysis in Norway. Forest Policy and Economics 147 e102899. 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102899.

Preview

Text 1-s2.0-S138993412200212X-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

To mitigate climate change, several European countries have launched policies to promote the development of a renewable resource-based bioeconomy. These bioeconomy strategies plan to use renewable biological resources, which will increase timber and biomass demands and will potentially conflict with multiple other ecosystem services provided by forests. In addition, these forest ecosystem services (FES) are also influenced by other, different, policy strategies, causing a potential mismatch in proposed management solutions for achieving the different policy goals. We evaluated how Norwegian forests can meet the projected wood and biomass demands from the international market for achieving mitigation targets and at the same time meet nationally determined targets for other FES. Using data from the Norwegian national forest inventory (NFI) we simulated the development of Norwegian forests under different management regimes and defined different forest policy scenarios, according to the most relevant forest policies in Norway: national forest policy (NFS), biodiversity policy (BIOS), and bioeconomy policy (BIES). Finally, through multi-objective optimization, we identified the combination of management regimes matching best with each policy scenario. The results for all scenarios indicated that Norway will be able to satisfy wood demands of up to 17 million m3 in 2093. However, the policy objectives for FES under each scenario caused substantial differences in terms of the management regimes selected. We observed that BIES and NFS resulted in very similar forest management programs in Norway, with a dominance of extensive management regimes. In BIOS there was an increase of set aside areas and continuous cover forestry, which made it more compatible with biodiversity indicators. We also found multiple synergies and trade-offs between the FES, likely influenced by the definition of the policy targets at the national scale.

Actions (login required)

View Item