E. G. Mason and David Evison
Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer, School of Forestry,
The forestry sector makes large direct and indirect contributions to the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
If the area under forest is increased then the size of this reservoir also increases. New forests sequester extra carbon from the atmosphere as they grow and are therefore carbon sinks. In this way forests can play a significant role in reducing the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change. The rate of carbon sequestration by forests depends on the growth rate of the trees, but planting of new forest, rehabilitation of existing native forest, or allowing scrub or uneconomic farmland to revert to forest are all mechanisms by which sequestration will occur.
Radiata pine plantations typically sequester between 25 and 30 tonnes of CO2/ha/year, and forests planted on marginal farmland will store additional carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere.
Replacement of grassland by forest is almost insignificant on a global scale (Piers Maclaren, pers. comm..), but is hugely important for
This direct contribution to GHG emission mitigation results from previously planted forest. Historically, planting occurred in three phases, as shown below. In general forests in their first rotation will be the major contributor to reduction in net emissions cited above, although changed management practices on forests planted earlier, that increase the volume of the growing stock, will also contribute. This is discussed in further detail below.
When forests are harvested CO2 may be released into the atmosphere, and so over many rotations the carbon stored follows a “sawtooth” pattern, as shown below.
Tonnes of elemental C stored in a typical radiata pine plantation stand that is periodically harvested. Source: Piers Maclaren
The cyclic historical pattern of investment in new plantings means that emissions from forest harvesting will also be somewhat cyclic, and those areas planted during the latest period of high investment, in the 1990s, are likely to be harvested during the 2020s. In order to avoid a serious problem in our future national GHG accounts we need to increase the rate of new planting right now. Unfortunately our net stocked area of plantation forest slightly decreased recently, especially just prior to the introduction of a tax on deforestation of “non-Kyoto” forest in 2008, and new plantation establishment is currently at an extremely low level.
Tonnes of elemental C stored in a typical radiata pine plantation showing the average storage. Over long periods of time the average will approach roughly 60% of the final carbon storage at harvest. Source: Piers Maclaren
It is not easy to quantify the indirect contribution of forestry, but it likely to be very large. It arises in the following ways:
- Land growing forest instead of livestock means our emissions of CH4 and N2O, two important GHGs, are much reduced. These agricultural emissions account for roughly half of our total emissions of GHGs, unlike in other first world nations where agricultural emissions are relatively minor components of total emissions.
- Wood used as a structural material has much less embodied energy than alternative products, and as our marginal energy production emits GHGs, any reductions in energy use can reduce our overall emissions. Air dried wood has an embodied energy footprint of 0.5 MJ/Kg, compared to 34 MJ/Kg for steel, 90 MJ/Kg for plastics and 170 MJ/Kg for aluminium (Lawson 1996). Concrete manufacture produces CO2 and also has high energy costs.
- Wood is an important, GHG-neutral, source of energy, and use of wood for energy displaces generation technologies that release GHGs. On a global scale this is a very important contribution, with typically 80% of wood harvested in developing nations being used for fuel.
- The use of wood in residential construction also acts as a carbon sink, at least for the life of the dwelling. This is not included in the current carbon accounting schemes, which assume all harvested wood as deemed emissions
- Other wood uses, such as treated roundwood, non residential construction, also form temporary carbon sinks.
Does the forestry sector contribute to climate change?
If only GHGs are considered then benefits from forestry are overwhelmingly positive, but afforestation can impact on global temperatures in at least one other significant way. The albedo of grassland is typically 0.24 to 0.27 compared to approximately 0.12 for radiata pine plantations (
The albedo effect is permanent, while CO2 sequestration benefits accrue primarily during the first rotation after plantation establishment, assuming no changes are made to either numbers of trees/hectare or rotation length. It should be noted, however, that most indirect forestry contributions to GHG emission mitigation are also permanent, and so we shall have to await further quantification of these processes before drawing any conclusions about the significance of the albedo effect in
How could we increase the forestry sector’s contribution to GHG emission mitigation?
With the right policy settings and with appropriate help for landowners, we could markedly increase the GHG benefits of forestry by:
- increasing the rate of new forest establishment;
- increasing sequestration in existing forests; and
- increasing the use of wood as a construction material.
Many hundreds of thousands of hectares of pastoral land would be more suitable under forest. These include steep and eroding land in the Manuwatu and in the East Coast region of the
Re-establishing forest on eroding hill country would not necessary require a significant reduction in farm production; rather it could be achieved by increased use of trees on farms, with generally the land most unsuitable and least productive for farming going into trees. Changes in land tenure would also not be necessary; joint ventures (where the farmer retains ownership of the land, and other investors provided the capital to establish forest) can be established easily under existing legislation.
Eroding hill country in the Manawatu where land would be much more stable under trees and where carbon farming could significantly increase the viability of local communities. Photo: E. G. Mason
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is available to “post-1989” forest owners, that is, owners of forest that replaced grassland after 1989. They can opt to measure and then sell carbon credits known as Emission Trading Units (ETUs). It has been shown (Evison, 2008) that the ETS will markedly improve the profitability of “post-1989” forests, under reasonable assumptions of carbon price. If administration and compliance costs are not excessive, and the market functions well (i.e. forest owners are able to buy or sell ETUs in the quantity required and at what is seen to be a reasonable price), then the scheme should provide additional incentive for new land to be planted.
Unfortunately, the ETS is currently not providing a significant incentive for forestry, because of the continuing uncertainty around the specifics of the scheme and the prospect that some emitting sectors may not have to participate. The prospect of forest owners having to pay carbon credits for forests destroyed by wind, fire or disease is creating additional uncertainty, with the forestry sector proposing a government-initiated insurance scheme to cover these contingencies. Further uncertainty is created by the fact that the current market is reliant on the agreement relating to the first commitment period (to 2014) and that no agreement to cover subsequent commitment periods is in place yet.
In addition, it is significant that most “post -1989” forest land is on relatively small holdings, and recent afforestation has been mostly on small holdings. This is likely to increase compliance costs per hectare; it is not known if this will discourage new planting by owners of small parcels of land. It is also significant that many people in the farming sector have very little forestry expertise and there is a high level of antipathy towards afforestation of farmland in rural communities. This antipathy is perhaps partly engendered by a perception that industrial scale forestry negatively impacts on those communities.
We might enhance afforestation by:
- increasing policy certainty, with both the nature of the New Zealand ETS finalised, and global agreement around future commitment periods; and
- providing expertise for owners of small areas of land to assist with afforestation on eroding farmland.
Increasing sequestration from existing forests
With the right incentives, existing forests can be managed over longer rotations and at higher stockings, both of which significantly increase the average amount of carbon stored in forests. Unfortunately, owners of forest planted prior to 1990 cannot accrue carbon credits in their forests, but they have to purchase ETUs if they change land use to cover the “emissions” associated with land use change.
The Ministry for the Environment reports that 566,106 ha of
The policy as outlined in the current ETS regulations, in providing compliance with the Kyoto Accord, ignores issues of equity for existing forest owners, by not rewarding owners on a “like-for-like” basis. Essentially, pre-1990 plantation owners have been providing a carbon storage service for free, and the ETS scheme in its current form would impose a penalty should they stop providing this service.
The impacts of this differential treatment for “pre-1990” forest owners are:
- Incentive to deforest prior to Jan 2008. It is highly likely that some land owners ‘brought forward” deforestation in order to avoid the penalties that would be incurred from Jan 2008. Thus features of the proposed policy itself generated deforestation.
- Increased complexity in decision making for forest owners.
- Lack of confidence by the industry, to re-invest in forestry. The proposed inequitable treatment of pre-1990 and post-1989 forest owners has already created this concern, which may be summarised: “If the government can create an arbitrary new rule that makes my forest less profitable than someone else’s, and limits my options by imposing a deforestation tax, then they can do it again in the future.”
- The current rules provide a strong disincentive to land use change. The flexibility of relatively unconstrained land use change would not be available to owners of pre-1990 forest land, and this will affect their land values as well as their options for development of their properties. In turn this may influence profits of forest enterprises and overall confidence in forestry as an investment option.
- The definition “pre-1990” is applied to the land, not the forest crop, so this constraint is applied for an indeterminate period.
There are two overall consequences of excluding “pre-1990” forests from earning ETUs through the ETS
- There is a loss of revenue to those forest growers. This is both inconsistent and a disincentive for those forest owners to manage their forests to meet the nation’s goals.
- There will also be a loss of sequestration capability to the nation that could be harnessed by silvicultural changes to these existing forests.
A quick calculation shows the likely magnitude of this loss of carbon sequestration:
- Assume sequestering 25 t per ha of CO2 or 625 T at a 25 year rotation, this implies an average store of 312 T in a radiata pine forest site.
- If the rotation age increases from 25 years to 35 years, this would increase the average store of carbon to 437 t.
- This is an incremental 125 t per hectare average or 181 million t of carbon potentially at steady state, for the 1.45 million hectares classified as “pre-1990”.
These are rough figures, based on a linear sequestration rate, but they show the scale of the potential benefits of applying the post-1989 forest ETS rules to pre-1990 forests. Note also that, that under
This is a simplistic analysis – it assumes that all forest owners are currently managing their forests on a 25 year rotation, and would change to a 35 year rotation. To minimise disruption to the timber supply, any such change would also need to be managed over a relatively long period.
Potential barriers to full implementation of the ETS for all forest owners are:
- Because differentiation of forest land into “pre-1990” and “post-1989” mirrors the Kyoto protocol, any changes to the treatment of “pre-1990” forests may impose extra Kyoto commitments, and it is important to determine who should pay for this. Essentially
’s treatment of these forests is asymmetrical, because only depletions in storage are recognised. Kyoto
- Any credits provided to pre-1990 forest owners would depend on local demand only, assuming they cannot be applied to our
- Impact on market price of units under ETS. Allowing non-Kyoto-compliant credits in the ETS may lower the price of ETUs.
- Disruption to the timber industry, if there is a widespread delay in harvests
These areas would need further analysis. Kerr and Sweet (2008) have asserted that full carbon accounting (i.e. including “pre-1990” forests in the ETS) would be possible under Article 3.4 of the
GHG sequestration in existing forests could therefore be greatly enhanced by removing the distinction between pre-1990 and post-1989 forests in the ETS legislation and allowing all forest owners to choose to participate in the scheme under post-1989 rules. More analysis may be required prior to scheme implementation to fully understand transition issues, and the management of risks such as those outlined above.
Increasing wood use as a construction material
Research at the
- increases in the pool of carbon in wood products
- reductions of fossil fuel use in manufacturing wood instead of more energy intensive materials like steel, concrete and aluminium
- burning wood waste materials for energy generation instead of fossil fuels
- reduced fossil fuel use for heating and/or cooling of buildings
Buchanan’s analysis suggests that item (2) above may be a significant contributor, and that likely impacts in
No major changes in policy are required in order to capture benefits from increasing wood use in building construction, but a coordinated research, education and promotional campaign would be required in order to change people’s habits (Buchanan 2005).
The world as a whole is more than meeting its Kyoto Treaty commitments (New Scientist 2008), and so
If we went further and allowed pre-1990 forest owners to claim credits for increased carbon storage, then we could make a further contribution to the mitigation of climate change, even though
Finally, developing new building technologies that use wood, and promoting the benefits of timber in construction, will also reduce green-house gas emissions.
Ph: 03 3642584 (Euan), 03 3642987 x 8361 (David)
Mobiles: 027 6082473, 027 5309462
Buchanan, A.H. (2006) Can Timber Buildings Help Reduce Global CO2 Emissions?
Gibbard, S., Caldeira, K., Bala, G., Phillips, T.J., and Wickett, M., (2005), Climate effects of global land cover change, Geophysical Research Letters 32
Gustavsson L., Pingoud K., and Sathre R. (2005). Carbon Dioxide Balance of Wood Substitution: Comparing Concrete- and Wood-Framed Buildings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Copy obtained at www.joanneum.at/iea-bioenergy-task38/projects/task38casestudies/finswefullreport.pdf in July 2009
Kerr, S. and Sweet, A, (2008). Inclusion of Agriculture and Forestry in a Domestic Emissions Trading Scheme:
Lawson, B, (1996), Building materials, energy and the environment: Towards ecologically sustainable development, RAIA,
Levack, H. H., (1991). Changes in Forestry Taxation. NZ Journal of Forestry, August 1991, Volume 36, No. 2. New Zealand Institute of Forestry
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, (2008).
Ministry for the Environment, (2009), Stakeholder progress report, Looking at LUCAS: Land Use Carbon Analysis System, Ministry for the Environment,
Ministry of Economic Development, (2009),
Moore, C.J., (1976), A comparative study of radiation balance above forest and grassland, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 102 (434)
New Scientist, (2008), World ahead of
 Reprinted with permission