Reversing the European trend toward a declining land carbon sink has become the new
mantra. The decision to increase net carbon uptake in the forest, however, is made
without adequately considering the consequences for the circular bioeconomy and climate
change mitigation more generally. LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry)
accounting fails to balance net carbon uptake with the positive substitution effects
from forest use recorded in the energy sector. The singular focus on the net forest
carbon sink distracts attention from the fact that, over the past century, many EU
Member states have managed to harvest ever larger amounts of forest, and, simultaneously,
to continuously increase both forest carbon stocks, as well as the size of the annual
forest increment. In the language of the European Commission's proposed LULUCF policy
framework, however, high harvesting rates and high forest use intensity are seen as
anathema to climate change mitigation because they are thought to threaten the reliability
of the EU UNFCCC emission reduction commitment framework, as well as the longevity
of Europe's forests, more generally. This, at least, is the unabashed message of one
recent Joint Research Centre (JRC) assessment of EU forestry, which argues that rapid
increases in harvest rates challenge the environmental integrity of EU emission-reduction
commitments. According to the authors, 'the loss of carbon in standing forests will
require additional efforts in other sectors to reach the EU climate neutrality target
by 2050'.1 We explore the parameters of this assessment, highlighting the fact that
preferences for more protected forests obscure our understanding of the climate benefits
forestry and forest resource use can provide. We argue the continuous net annual contributions
to the global carbon budget provided by the circular bioeconomy (avoided emissions,
net removals and renewed forest growth) should be more carefully considered. Increasing
net forest carbon uptake by reducing forest use intensity (i.e., annual harvest) is
not the only, nor is it even the most beneficial, pathway to increasing LULUCF-based
climate change mitigation potential. Policymakers should pay greater attention both
to the mix of micro-level mechanisms and incentives created by the EU LULUCF policy
framework and the mix of public and private sector interests and investment goals
intended to undergird future forest growth and LULUCF-based mitigation potential.
As we demonstrate, promoting reforestation efforts beyond Managed Forest Lands (MFL)
has contributed only minimally to the global carbon budget and has failed to garner
the kind of investment momentum required to make it a meaningful mitigation solution.
MFL, on the other hand, have witnessed far greater contributions to the global carbon
budget but are generally not fully mobilized in the EU climate policy framework. Striking
an appropriate balance between the many climate change mitigation, human livelihood
and consumption benefits forests and forest-based resources can provide, on the one
hand, and protected, biodiverse-rich forest environments, on the other, requires a
more balanced approach.
