Trade‐Offs for Climate‐Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate

Forests mitigate climate change by storing carbon and reducing emissions via substitution effects of wood products. Additionally, they provide many other important ecosystem services (ESs), but are vulnerable to climate change; therefore, adaptation is necessary. Climate‐smart forestry combines mitigation with adaptation, whilst facilitating the provision of many ESs. This is particularly challenging due to large uncertainties about future climate. Here, we combined ecosystem modeling with robust multi‐criteria optimization to assess how the provision of various ESs (climate change mitigation, timber provision, local cooling, water availability, and biodiversity habitat) can be guaranteed under a broad range of climate futures across Europe. Our optimized portfolios contain 29% unmanaged forests, and implicate a successive conversion of 34% of coniferous to broad‐leaved forests (11% vice versa). Coppices practically vanish from Southern Europe, mainly due to their high water requirement. We find the high shares of unmanaged forests necessary to keep European forests a carbon sink while broad‐leaved and unmanaged forests contribute to local cooling through biogeophysical effects. Unmanaged forests also pose the largest benefit for biodiversity habitat. However, the increased shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests lead to reductions in harvests. This raises the question of how to meet increasing wood demands without transferring ecological impacts elsewhere or enhancing the dependence on more carbon‐intensive industries. Furthermore, the mitigation potential of forests depends on assumptions about the decarbonization of other industries and is consequently crucially dependent on the emission scenario. Our findings highlight that trade‐offs must be assessed when developing concrete strategies for climate‐smart forestry.
Plain Language Summary: Forests help mitigate climate change by storing carbon and via avoided emissions when wood products replace more carbon‐intensive materials. At the same time, forests provide many other “ecosystem services (ESs)” to society. For example, they provide timber, habitat for various species, and they cool their surrounding regions. They are, however, also vulnerable to ongoing climate change. Forest management must consider all these aspects, which is particularly challenging considering the uncertainty about future climate. Here, we propose how this may be tackled by computing optimized forest management portfolios for Europe for a broad range of future climate pathways. Our results show that changes to forest composition are necessary. In particular, increased shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests are beneficial for numerous ESs. However, these increased shares also lead to decreases in harvest rates, posing a conflict between wood supply and demand. We further show that the mitigation potential of forests strongly depends on how carbon‐intensive the replaced materials are. Consequently, should these materials become “greener” due to new technologies, the importance of wood products in terms of climate change mitigation decreases. Our study highlights that we cannot optimize every aspect, but that trade‐offs between ESs need to be made.
Key Points: Strategies for climate‐smart forestry under a range of climate scenarios always lead to trade‐offs between different ecosystem services (ESs). Higher shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests are beneficial for numerous ESs, but lead to decreased timber provision. The mitigation potential of forests strongly relies on substitution effects which depend on the carbon‐intensity of the alternative products.
European Forest Institute (EFI) Networking Fund http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013942
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Bayerisches Netzwerk für Klimaforschung (BayKliF) http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004563
Swedish Research Council Formas
German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE)
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6667489
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6612953