On the role of forests and the forest sector for climate change mitigation in Sweden

Long-standing debate over the benefits of forest conservation vs. those of forest resource use and substitution continue to occupy attention in Europe and beyond. To study this question, we simulate the short- and long-term consequences for atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations of different forest management strategies and forest product uses in Sweden. We compare the projected short- and long-term consequences of increasing forest use vs. increasing land set-asides. In all scenarios but one, forest management for wood production results in higher net GHG reduction than the alternative to set-aside forests for conservation. In all scenarios, annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) sequestration rates in conservation forests decline as maturing forests eventually reach a steady state, while they rise in all other forest management strategies. Thus, there is an apparent tradeoff between wood production and nature conservation. Forest set-asides are associated with sizable long-term opportunity costs corresponding to the foregone wood production capacity. Retained in the circular bioeconomy system over the long-term, forest management for wood production eventually stabilizes at significantly higher amounts than a management system which promotes greater shares of forest protection and conservation. In all cases, the long-term mitigation gains from wood production are cumulative and significant. Likewise, the indicative level of wood supply for biobased production that can be maintained without causing systematic loss in land carbon stocks is large. Such long-term consequences, however, are not properly accounted for in the European Union’s (EU’s) legislative LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) carbon accounting framework, which effectively encourages land set-asides at the expense of forest wood production capacity.