Land and biodiversity policies/Forestry sector: Difference between revisions

From IMAGE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(added references to afforestation policy section)
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ZZ_PolicyResponsePartTemplate
{{PolicyResponsePartTemplate
|PageLabel=Targeting agricultural demand
|PageLabel=Forestry sector
|Sequence=2
|Sequence=4
|Reference=Stehfest et al., 2013;
|Reference=FAO, 2013a; IEA, 2012; Putz et al., 2012;
|Description=<h2>Interventions targeting agricultural demand</h2>
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
<div class="page_standard">
|Header=Changing consumption
<h2>Interventions targeting the forestry sector</h2>
|Description=Interventions that induce shifts in consumption, for example, towards less meat-intensive diets, directly reduce the demand for animal products (figure B on the right). As a first order effect, this intervention reduces all downstream effects of production proportionally. In other words, less demand for animal products and thus less demand for feed crop production, which requires less land and water and fewer nutrients – if all other settings in the crop production system remain the same – and thus decrease the impacts on biodiversity and climate (figures B and C on the right). However, as production systems are heterogeneous across and within regions, the effects may not be proportional. If, for example, extensively farmed agricultural areas, which typically have lower yields than other agricultural lands, are abandoned first, the reduction in area will be larger. Likewise, if production would shift to regions with lower yields, less area reduction can be achieved. In addition to this heterogeneity effect, feedbacks in the economic system via price and trade may change the final impact of a demand intervention, compared to the first-order effect, especially if such interventions are only applied in certain regions. Lower demand for meat may reduce world market prices, and thus increase the demand in other regions ([[Stehfest et al., 2013]]). Although this rebound effect would reduce the environmental benefits of the intervention, the impact on human health could still be positive.
{{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart Land and biodiversity policies (C)}}
|PISet=Consumption and diet preferences;
Reducing the rate of agricultural expansion can lead to fewer wood products from forest clearance / deforestation, and thus to an increase in the forest area to meet the wood demand ([[PBL, 2010]]); see also Component [[Forest management]]. Options for alternative forest management have been evaluated in [[Rethinking Biodiversity Strategies (2010) project|Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies]] ([[PBL, 2010]]).
</div>
 
 
'''Afforestation for climate change mitigation'''
 
Planting forest on former agricultural land results in the storage of carbon in plant biomass. These negative emissions can be crucial to achieve stringent climate targets. In IMAGE, forest can be expanded by reducing agricultural land. Forest can be grown through natural regeneration or through active planting and management of trees (similar to wood plantations) to enhance forest growth ([[Braakhekke et al., 2019]]). The extent of afforestation can be applied cost-optimally by making afforestation dependent on the carbon price as determined in the [[climate policy]] model ([[Doelman et al., 2019]]). In this way, afforestation is compared to other climate change mitigation options in the energy system and in agriculture. Alternatively, afforestation can be prescribed based on government policies or international ambitions.
{{#default_form:PolicyResponsePartForm}}
{{PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Shifts in consumption
|Description=Interventions targeting shifts in consumption of forest products have a direct effect on timber demand and, thus also affect the need for forestry areas in production (PBL, 2010). The increase in demand could concern industrial roundwood or paper, but also wood as traditional bioenergy. As a first-order effect, an intervention to change demand for industrial products reduces all upstream effects of production proportionally. Data on wood for traditional biomass are not available, and estimates vary greatly partly due to whether the focus is on use or production. With estimates ranging from 1300 Mt/y ([[FAO, 2013a]]) to 2400 Mt/y ([[IEA, 2012]]), a considerable proportion of the total wood use can be attributed to fuelwood. A decrease in wood use for traditional biomass has fewer direct impacts on the IMAGE biodiversity results than decreases in other uses, because only part of the production is harvested in industrial forestry activities (see Component [[Forest management]]). Large quantities of fuelwood are collected or produced in areas smaller than included in the level of detail of the IMAGE framework, such as orchards and road-sides. This implies that interventions related to this kind of use do not completely show up in biodiversity impacts.
|PISet=Increase access to water;
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Reducing food losses
|Header=Bio-energy demand
|Description=Policies aimed at reducing food losses directly decrease the demand for food, in the case of waste on a consumer level, or, if post-harvest losses are reduced, decrease the amount of produce needed to fulfil the demand. This reduces the need for the production of food crops, fodder crops and animal products and therefore also reduces the environmental impacts of the production systems and the amount of agricultural land used. However, the same dynamics and second-order effects could be expected as those described under 'shifts in consumption'.
|Description=Bioenergy demand will affect demand for forestry products for the energy sector, with effects similar to those expected under the shifts in consumption. The impact on biodiversity will depend on the sustainability criteria, management practices, and regions in which timber is harvested.
|PISet=‎Implementation of sustainability criteria in bio-energy production;
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Managing demand for bio-energy crops
|Header=Improve forest management
|Description=Policy interventions to manage the demand for bio-energy directly change the demand for bio-energy crops (figure A on the right). The environmental impacts, including land use, of such interventions depend on the mix of bio-energy crops, and stimulation of and/or restrictions on different bio-energy sources. Restricting the use of bio-energy directly affects the options and costs of climate policies (see also [[Climate policy]] and [[Air pollution and energy policies]]). It is important to note that the impact of reduced bio-energy demand on biodiversity can be twofold: on the one hand, more bio-energy use requires more land and therefore involves biodiversity loss (the same dynamics can be expected as described under 'shifts in consumption'). On the other hand, if policy on bio-energy use is not replaced by other (maybe more costly) climate policy measures, long-term climate change would be more severe, and thus biodiversity loss due to climate change could be greater, as well ([[Oorschot et al., 2010]]).
|Description=Improving forest management will affect the area required to meet timber demand and the impact of timber harvest on biodiversity loss. A system of Reduced Impact Logging ({{abbrTemplate|RIL}}), which relates to improvements that can be implemented in selective logging management, could reduce harvest damage, stimulate regrowth and maintain biodiversity ([[Putz et al., 2012]]). In addition, dedicated plantations could be established and would reduce the area of natural forest needed for timber harvest, since wood production is higher in plantation areas. However, biodiversity values of those areas are relatively low.
 
|PISet=More sustainable forest management; Expanding Reduced Impact Logging; Increase forest plantations
Several policies that affect demand have been analysed using the IMAGE model; for example, that on the reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy ([[PBL, 2011]]; [[Stehfest et al., 2013]]), restricted use of bio-energy, and reductions in losses and waste ([[PBL, 2010]]; [[PBL, 2012]]).
}}
|PISet=Biofuel; Sustainability criteria in bio-energy production;
{{PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
}}
}}
[[Page has default form::ZZ_PolicyResponsePartForm| ]]
{{ContentPartsTemplate}}

Latest revision as of 15:34, 16 June 2021

link to framework components overview

Parts of Land and biodiversity policies/Forestry sector

  1. Introduction page
  2. Agricultural demand
  3. Agricultural production system
  4. Forestry sector
  5. Land-use regulation
  6. Policy issues
  7. Data, uncertainties and limitations
  8. Overview of references
Relevant overviews
References

Interventions targeting the forestry sector


Policy interventions in the forestry system
Flowchart Land and biodiversity policies (C). Policy interventions targeting the forestry sector.

Reducing the rate of agricultural expansion can lead to fewer wood products from forest clearance / deforestation, and thus to an increase in the forest area to meet the wood demand (PBL, 2010); see also Component Forest management. Options for alternative forest management have been evaluated in Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies (PBL, 2010).


Afforestation for climate change mitigation

Planting forest on former agricultural land results in the storage of carbon in plant biomass. These negative emissions can be crucial to achieve stringent climate targets. In IMAGE, forest can be expanded by reducing agricultural land. Forest can be grown through natural regeneration or through active planting and management of trees (similar to wood plantations) to enhance forest growth (Braakhekke et al., 2019). The extent of afforestation can be applied cost-optimally by making afforestation dependent on the carbon price as determined in the climate policy model (Doelman et al., 2019). In this way, afforestation is compared to other climate change mitigation options in the energy system and in agriculture. Alternatively, afforestation can be prescribed based on government policies or international ambitions.


Shifts in consumption

Interventions targeting shifts in consumption of forest products have a direct effect on timber demand and, thus also affect the need for forestry areas in production (PBL, 2010). The increase in demand could concern industrial roundwood or paper, but also wood as traditional bioenergy. As a first-order effect, an intervention to change demand for industrial products reduces all upstream effects of production proportionally. Data on wood for traditional biomass are not available, and estimates vary greatly partly due to whether the focus is on use or production. With estimates ranging from 1300 Mt/y (FAO, 2013a) to 2400 Mt/y (IEA, 2012), a considerable proportion of the total wood use can be attributed to fuelwood. A decrease in wood use for traditional biomass has fewer direct impacts on the IMAGE biodiversity results than decreases in other uses, because only part of the production is harvested in industrial forestry activities (see Component Forest management). Large quantities of fuelwood are collected or produced in areas smaller than included in the level of detail of the IMAGE framework, such as orchards and road-sides. This implies that interventions related to this kind of use do not completely show up in biodiversity impacts.

Table: Policy interventions Shifts in consumption
Policy interventionDescriptionImplemented in/affected component
Increase access to water Increase access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation by lowering prices and investing in infrastructure

(*) Implementing component.


Bio-energy demand

Bioenergy demand will affect demand for forestry products for the energy sector, with effects similar to those expected under the shifts in consumption. The impact on biodiversity will depend on the sustainability criteria, management practices, and regions in which timber is harvested.

Table: Policy interventions Bio-energy demand
Policy interventionDescriptionImplemented in/affected component
‎Implementation of sustainability criteria in bio-energy production Sustainability criteria that could become binding for dedicated bio-energy production, such as the restrictive use of water-scarce or degraded areas.

(*) Implementing component.


Improve forest management

Improving forest management will affect the area required to meet timber demand and the impact of timber harvest on biodiversity loss. A system of Reduced Impact Logging (RIL), which relates to improvements that can be implemented in selective logging management, could reduce harvest damage, stimulate regrowth and maintain biodiversity (Putz et al., 2012). In addition, dedicated plantations could be established and would reduce the area of natural forest needed for timber harvest, since wood production is higher in plantation areas. However, biodiversity values of those areas are relatively low.

Table: Policy interventions Improve forest management
Policy interventionDescriptionImplemented in/affected component
More sustainable forest management Sustainable forest management aims for maintaining long-term harvest potential and good ecological status of forests (e.g. the nutrient balance and biodiversity). This can be implemented by (i) enlarging the return period when a forest can be harvested again; (ii) only using certain fractions of the harvested biomass and leave the remaining part in the forests.
Expanding Reduced Impact Logging Increasing the share of produced wood yielded with Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) practices instead of conventional logging practices.
Increase forest plantations Increase the use of wood from highly productive wood plantations instead of wood from (semi-) natural forests.

(*) Implementing component.




  1. Introduction page
  2. Agricultural demand
  3. Agricultural production system
  4. Forestry sector
  5. Land-use regulation
  6. Policy issues
  7. Data, uncertainties and limitations
  8. Overview of references
Retrieved from "https://models.pbl.nl/index.php?title=Land_and_biodiversity_policies/Forestry_sector&oldid=36579"