Required displacement factors for evaluating and comparing climate impacts of intensive and extensive forestry in Germany

Abstract

Abstract Background Forestry plays a major role in climate change mitigation. However, which intensity of logging is best suited for that task remains controversial. We contribute to the debate by quantitatively analyzing three different forest management scenarios in Germany—a baseline scenario which represents a continuation of current forest management practice as well as an intensive and an extensive logging scenario. We assess whether increased carbon storage in wood products and substitution of other emission-intensive materials can offset reduced carbon stocks in the forest due to increased harvesting. For that, we calculate annual required displacement factors (RDF)—a dimensionless quantity that indicates the minimal displacement factor (DF) so that intensive forestry outperforms extensive forestry from a climate perspective. Results If the intensive forest management scenario is included in the comparison, the RDF starts off with relatively high values (1 to 1.5) but declines over time and eventually even reaches negative values. Comparing the extensive scenario to a baseline yields RDF values between 0.1 and 0.9 with a slightly increasing trend. Compared to RDFs, expected future DFs are too low to favour the intensive forestry scenario and too high to favour the extensive forestry scenario, during the first 25 years of the modeling period. However, towards the end of the modeling period, the relationship between DFs and RDF is turned around in both comparisons. In the comparison between intensive and extensive forest management RDF values are very similar to future DF trajectories. Conclusion RDFs are a useful tool for comparing annual climate impacts of forest growth scenarios and can be used to benchmark material and energy substitution effects of wood. Our results indicate that the baseline scenario reflects an effective compromise between carbon stocks in the forest and carbon displacement by wood use. For a longer modeling period, however, this might not be the case. Which of the alternative scenarios would be best suited for climate change mitigation is heavily dependent on future DF trajectory. Hence, our findings highlight the necessity of robust projections of forest dynamics and industry decarbonization pathways.