The potential role of the forest sector in climate change mitigation

Werner A. Kurz

Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service

Carbon/Life Cycle Assessment Workshop Victoria/Vancouver March 5/6, 2018

Outline 2

§  Climate change and the role of forests in carbon cycle §  Estimation and reporting of forest sector GHG balance §  Mitigation options in the forest sector §  Role of bioenergy §  Recent initiatives §  Conclusions §  Questions

Impacts of climate change occur today – and will increase!

3

Globalemissionsfromfossilfuelandindustry:36.2±2GtCO2in2016,62%over1990Projectionfor2017:36.8±2GtCO2,2.0%higherthan2016

Estimatesfor2015and2016arepreliminary.Growthrateisadjustedfortheleapyearin2016.Source:CDIAC;LeQuéréetal2017;GlobalCarbonBudget2017

Emissionsfromfossilfueluseandindustry

Uncertaintyis±5%foronestandarddeviation(IPCC“likely”range)

EmissionsProjectionsfor2017

Globalemissionsfromfossilfuelsandindustryareprojectedtoriseby2.0%in2017Theglobalprojectionhasalargeuncertainty,rangingfrom+0.8%to+3.0%

Source:CDIAC;Jacksonetal2017;LeQuéréetal2017;GlobalCarbonBudget2017

30%11.0GtCO2/yr

FateofanthropogenicCO2emissions(2007–2016)

Source:CDIAC;NOAA-ESRL;HoughtonandNassikas2017;Hansisetal2015;LeQuéréetal2017;GlobalCarbonBudget2017

24%8.8GtCO2/yr

34.4GtCO2/yr

88%

12%4.8GtCO2/yr

17.2GtCO2/yr

46%

Sources=Sinks

6%2.2GtCO2/yr

BudgetImbalance:(thedifferencebetweenestimatedsources&sinks)

Deforestation, land-use change

Fossil fuel burning, cement

7

•  Ambitious temperature target well below 2o C.

•  The submissions on intended Nationally-Determined Contributions (NDCs) from ~148 countries recognise the importance of the land sector in achieving GHG emission reduction targets.

Paris Agreement

2

7

8 IPCC emissions scenarios

Representative Concentration Pathways

CO2 Concentrations CO2 Emissions

Source: Zwiers, Van Vuuren et al. 2011, Climatic Change

To stay below the 2o C climate threshold NEGATIVE net emissions are required later in this century. Forests can remove carbon from the atmosphere cost effectively and with multiple co-benefits.

<2 oC

Netnegativeemissionsrequiredtoachieve<2oC

IntheleaduptotheIPCC’sSixthAssessmentReportnewscenarioshavebeendevelopedtomoresystematicallyexplorekeyuncertaintiesinfuturesocioeconomicdevelopments

FiveSharedSocioeconomicPathways(SSPs)havebeendevelopedtoexplorechallengestoadaptationandmitigation.SharedPolicyAssumptions(SPAs)areusedtoachievetargetforcinglevels(W/m2).MarkerScenariosareindicated.

Source:Riahietal.2016;IIASASSPDatabase;GlobalCarbonBudget2017

<2 oC

BECCS: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage

§  Estimates of required cumulative CO2 removal using BECCS to achieve < 2oC increase vary by study.

§  IPCC estimate ~600 Gt CO2 cumulative removals by 2100 §  Land required for bioenergy plantations: 500+ Mha §  Competing with other wood uses, food and other land values. §  Current operational BECCS capacity: ~ZERO.

10

BECCS: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage

§  Let the promise of unrealistically large future sinks from BECSS and the land sector not become an excuse to not reduce fossil fuel emissions.

§  If the land sector fails to deliver these large sinks then the temperature goals will be even less attainable.

§  However, the land sector and in particular forests can contribute to climate change mitigation strategies.

11

We’relookingfornew,ground-breaking,transformationalapproachestoconvertingCO2emissionsinto

valuableproducts.

Source: http://carbon.xprize.org/news/introducing-20m-nrg-cosia-carbon-xprize Tuesday Sept 29, 2015

12

We’relookingfor…approachestoconvertingCO2emissionsintovaluableproducts.

13

In fact we have been doing this for centuries 14

344-yr old wooden house in Interlaken, Switzerland

Forest Carbon §  50% of the dry weight of wood is carbon

§  1 m3 of wood contains

~ 0.25 tons of carbon

or ~1 ton of CO2 §  ~ 350 litres of gasoline

15

Forest Carbon §  50% of the dry weight of wood is carbon

§  1 m3 of wood contains

~ 0.25 tons of carbon

or ~1 ton of CO2 §  ~ 350 litres of gasoline

16

Carbon content: Volume x Specific Gravity x C fraction

Specific Gravity varies by & within species*

Western Red Cedar 330 kg/m3

Lodgepole pine 410 kg/m3

Douglas-fir 450 kg/m3 (range: 323 - 615)

Mountain Hemlock 540 kg/m3

Red Maple 588 kg/m3

C fraction#: 0.46 – 0.55 g C / g OD biomass * Gonzalez (1990)

# Lamlom and Savidge (2003)

~ 1 million cubic meters of wood ~ 1 Mt CO2 BC annual harvest ~67 times this amount BC emissions from other sectors ~63 Mt CO2

17

Forest Ecosystems

Maximise Carbon Stocks

Minimise net Emissions to the Atmosphere

Non-forest Land Use

Land-use Sector Forest Sector

Biofuel

Wood Products

Services used by Society

Other Products

Fossil Fuel

Mitigation Strategies: Need for Systems Perspective

Source: IPCC 2007, AR4 WG III, Forestry

18

19

Forest Ecosystems

Maximise Carbon stocks ….

Biofuel

Wood Products Other Products

Fossil Fuel Fossil Fuel

Fossil Emissions

Maximise Carbon stocks

Forest Ecosystems

Biofuel

Wood Products

Services used by Society

Fossil Fuel

Other Products

Fossil Fuel

Fossil Emissions

or maximise Carbon uptake?

20

Design of climate change mitigation portfolios in the forest sector should account for changes in C in

§  forest ecosystems,

§  in harvested wood products, and

§  for changes in emission from substitution benefits

relative to a base case.

Systems Perspective 20

One national system, many uses: §  Reporting past C dynamics

§  National GHG Inventory since 2006 §  State of Canada’s Forests

§  Projecting future C dynamics

§  Scientific research §  Policy development §  International negotiations

§  Develop climate mitigation and

adaptation strategies

21

Canada’s National Forest Carbon Monitoring, Accounting &Reporting System

3 http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/

21

Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) §  An operational-scale model of forest C dynamics. §  Builds on 25+ years of experience §  Allows forest managers to assess carbon implications of forest

management: increase sinks, reduce sources §  Available at carbon.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca

22

Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) §  Represents carbon in above and belowground live tree biomass, dead

trees, woody debris, litter and soil carbon. §  Tracks carbon gains from forest growth and losses from mortality,

disturbances and decomposition. §  Estimates and reports carbon fluxes within ecosystems, exchanges

with the atmosphere, and transfers to forest product sector.

23

Carbon Budget Model Framework for Harvested Wood Products §  Tracks fate of carbon harvested in Canada §  Industrial wood and residential firewood uses §  Conversion to commodities (sawnwood, panels, pulp and paper, etc.) §  Conversion to energy §  Half lives for different product categories §  Landfills §  12 regions of wood harvest (Provinces and Territories) §  Export to US, Japan, Rest of World §  Harvest since 1900 to 1989 (inherited emissions) and 1990 to present §  Reports stocks in product categories, landfills, §  Reports emissions (CO2 and CH4)

24

National-scale integration of forest C cycle data

Land-use change data

Forest inventory and growth & yield data

Natural disturbance monitoring data

Forest management activity data

Ecological modelling parameters

CBM-CFS3 Source: Kurz and Apps, 2006, Kurz et al. 2009

25

Carbon balance of Canada’s managed forests Forest sector GHG dynamics strongly affected by natural disturbances.

Insects Fire Harvest Emissions (FL-FL)

Source: Updated after Stinson et al. 2011, ECCC 2016

Sink

Source

FL-FL plus HWP emissions

26

Forests are a carbon sink. Forest management provides timber, fiber and energy to society – some of that carbon is stored in products, some is emitted from burning and decay of products

New Reporting Approach 27

Source: NIR 2017 & Natural Resources Canada

FL-FL managed land Managed FL-FL

Managed FL-FL +

Plus lands affected by natural disturbances

Separates emissions on managed lands from emission (and removals) from natural disturbances Includes emissions from HWP sector. More clearly shows trends associated with changes in forest management. Does not fully reflect impacts on atmosphere.

C transfers to Forest Products Sector 28

•  Cumulative and annual transfer of carbon to products §  1.26 billion tonnes of C (cumulative) §  50.4 Mt/year (average 1990 - 2014) = 185 Mt CO2e

(equivalent to ~25% of emissions from all other sectors)

Increasesinksthroughforestmanagement:fertilization,standtending,treeselection,etc.Rehabilitationafternaturaldisturbances(wildfireandinsects).Reduceharvestresidueburning.Harvestless/moredependingonconditions.Increaseafforestationandavoiddeforestation.

Maximizecarbonretentioninlong-livedproducts.Cascadingwooduse.Reducewoodwasteateverystage.Divertwoodproductsfromlandfills.

Replaceemissions-intensiveproductssuchassteelandconcretewithwoodproducts.Replacefossilfuelswithbioenergyfromwoodwaste,whereappropriate.

Options for forest sector mitigation activities: ForestEcosystemHarvestedWoodProductsSubstitution

29 We have modeled some of these …

Mitigation analyses: analytical framework

CBM-CFS3 and CBM-FHWP used for Canada’s National GHG inventory reporting.

30

Forest Ecosystems

Biofuel

Wood Products

Fossil Fuel

Other Products

Fossil Fuel

Carbon Budget Model CBM-CFS3

CBM FHWP

Substitution Estimation

31

National-scale Mitigation Analysis

http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/3515/2014/bg-11-3515-2014.pdf

31

32

Maximize Forest Management and HWP mitigation Cumulative emission reductions to 2050 (relative to baseline)

-1500 -1250 -1000 -750 -500 -250

0 250 500

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Tota

l (M

tCO

2e)

Year

Reduced emissions

Increased emissions

Portfolio Mix: 1180 MtCO2e

Better Utilization+ LLP

Bioenergy feedstock

Longer-lived Products (LLP)

Harvest Less + LLP

Results Scenarios:Plantingand‘bettergrowth’.

Planting and better growth enhanced forest sink

Scenarios:HarvestLess

and enhanced forest sinks.

but reduced emissions from wood products,

Increased emissions from non-wood energy and products,

Overall mitigation

Results

Results

35

Scenarios:Longer-livedwoodproducts

and reduce emissions from wood products

Created more long-lived structural wood products, to

Overall mitigation

reduce emissions from energy-intensive materials,

Results Thebestmitigationactivitiesvarybyregion:createaportfolioofregionally-differentiatedforestmanagementandwood-usestrategiestomaximizeGHGreduction.

Portfolio

and reduced emissions or enhanced sink in the forest.

but these reduced emissions from non-wood sources,

Increased wood product emissions,

Mitigation Analysis for BC

Open Access at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change: 2017

By 2050,18.2 MtCO2e/yr or 35% of BC’s emission reduction target can be contributed by the forest sector at less than $100/tonne of CO2e with additional socio-economic benefits. Greater contributions are possible with more ambitious actions.

37

Results (Xu et al. 2017) BestmitigationactivitiesvarybyregioninBC:aportfolioofregionally-differentiatedforestmanagementandwood-usestrategiescanachieve35%ofemissionreductionsby2050.

and reduced emissions or enhanced sink in the forest.

but these reduced emissions from non-wood sources,

Increased wood product emissions,

39

Paper

Packaging

Bio

ener

gy

Panels

Structural Building Products

Mitigation benefit increases with carbon retention and displacement factor

Carbon Retention Time

Dis

plac

emen

t Fac

tor

40 Mitigation benefits by displacing emissions from concrete

and steel through the use of wood products 6 story Wood Innovation Design Centre Prince George, BC 18-story wood building

UBC, Vancouver

Art Gallery of Ontario Toronto, Ontario

But do we have enough wood to increase manufacturing of long-lived products?

Photos: T. Sullivan 2016 exports of unprocessed logs from BC ~6.3 million m3

But do we have enough wood to increase manufacturing of long-lived products?

Photos: T. Sullivan

BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION: 2016 exports of unprocessed logs from BC ~6.3 million m3 per year

Assuming ~35% conversion efficiency to Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) This is enough wood to produce ~1,000 Brocks Commons buildings And leave 4 million m3 of residues that could be converted into ~ 300 million litres of diesel Which is about 7.5% of the diesel use in BC.

§  Climate change can only be mitigated if human actions bring about real reductions in atmospheric GHG concentrations.

§  Some policy-based accounting rules exaggerate apparent benefits of actions. §  For example, importing biomass for bioenergy can result in reduced fossil fuel

emissions in a national account (which assumes carbon neutrality of bioenergy). §  However, the wood exporting country has to report the increased emissions from

biomass burning in their national GHG inventory. §  Even if the importing country can report an apparent emissions reduction, the

increased emissions in the wood exporting country can more than compensate for the emissions reductions by the importing country.

§  And thus the net benefit to the atmosphere will be much smaller than the accounted amount and can even be negative, i.e. greater net emissions.

Accounting vs. atmospheric benefits 43

Accounting vs. atmospheric GHG reductions 44

“C neutral” Processing + transport reduced fossil

Actual Emissions Processing + transport reduced fossil

Atmospheric Perspective:

Accounting Perspective:

Imported pellets

Can we reduce emissions from slash pile burning Alternate uses?

Photo: T. Sullivan

Photo: BC MoF

45

Can we capture energy and reduce non CO2 emissions?

Photos: T. Sullivan

46

§  Bioenergy is not carbon neutral (but forest regrowth will remove carbon from the atmosphere over time).

§  Bioenergy is often derived from harvest residues, processing residues, construction and post-consumer residues.

§  Cascading wood use: use wood to achieve long carbon retention and high substitution benefits, use residues for engineered products (e.g. OSB) and remaining residues for bioenergy.

§  Harvesting live trees for only bioenergy use neither contributes to climate change mitigation (as regrowth will occur over decades) nor does it make economic sense. (Bioenergy plantations can be an exception).

§  Wood-based bioenergy can also contribute liquid transportation fuels to help address emission reductions that are otherwise difficult to achieve (e.g. long range transport and jet fuels).

Bioenergy can contribute to mitigation 47

Management options 48

Source: Brix 1993 Control

Thinned and Fertilised

Fertilised Thinned

Silvicultural treatments to increase carbon accumulation per tree or per hectare.

§  Placing a price on carbon enables protection, planting and silvicultural activities that in the past have been considered “uneconomical”.

§  Will a carbon price lead to shifts in societal values? §  Climate change impacts (fire, insects, drought) will create many dead trees:

salvage logging, site rehabilitation, assisted tree migration and enhanced silviculture can help increase C sinks relative to the “no action” scenario.

§  Government investments to enhance forest carbon sinks can contribute to climate-effective, cost-effective mitigation portfolios.

§  Forest carbon management demonstration areas can help improve public understanding and acceptance of carbon-focused management.

§  Monitoring of carbon dynamics required to demonstrate value of mitigation investments.

The future of forest carbon management? 49

§  Impacts of environmental changes on forests will be both positive and negative: growth, mortality, disturbances.

§  Understanding where, when and how these impacts will occur is necessary to design effective climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies for the forest sector.

§  Ongoing CFS research, in collaboration with universities and provincial agencies, will inform the design of regionally-differentiated mitigation strategies.

Climate change impacts affect mitigation options 50

§  How sustainable is forest management in a changing climate (regeneration)?

§  Changes in disturbance rates (fire, insects) and risk to mitigation strategies?

§  Life cycle analyses of wood products, substitution and elasticity of demand?

§  Upper bounds of forest sector contribution to net negative emissions?

§  Expansion of forest area, enhancement of forest productivity,

§  Optimum use of long-lived wood products and biomass for energy.

§  Costs of mitigation actions (relative to other options)

§  Co-benefits and trade-offs?

§  Responses of unmanaged forest lands (forests, peatlands, permafrost)?

Uncertainties and research needs 51

§  Improve GHG balance: increase sinks (grow more trees, faster) and reduce sources (thinning to capture mortality and fuel management)

§  Avoid land-use change (deforestation) §  Use harvested trees first for long-lived harvested wood products (HWPs) §  Maximize carbon retention in HWPs and reduce wood waste at every stage §  Maximize avoided emissions through wood use §  Do not burn residues or waste unless energy is captured §  Conserve forests in areas of high conservation value and of low risk of natural

disturbance §  Anticipate climate change impacts and align mitigation and adaptation objectives §  Monitor consequences of carbon management actions §  Obtain public support to use forest sector in climate change mitigation strategies

10 steps towards forest sector mitigation 52

Increasing stored carbon §  protect and enhance carbon sinks, in forests, wetlands, and agricultural

lands (e.g. land-use and conservation). Increasing the use of wood for construction §  encourage the increased use of wood products in construction, including

through updated building codes. Generating bioenergy and bioproducts §  identify opportunities to produce renewable fuels and bioproducts, e.g.,

generating renewable fuel from waste. Advancing innovation §  enhance innovation to advance GHG efficient management practices in

forestry and agriculture.

Source: Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, 2016

Pan-Canadian Framework: Forestry – New Actions

53

BC has already announced $150 million Forest Carbon Initiative. Federal support from LCEF for forestry projects in BC and elsewhere has been announced. To achieve GHG reduction targets, investments into forest sector have to be ongoing. And this will require demonstration of GHG reduction outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Low Carbon Economy Fund

54

Forest C mitigation and reporting its outcome in national GHG inventories requires tools and data to establish: 1.  Business-as-usual baseline of C dynamics without mitigation action. 2.  Projection of C dynamics to evaluate alternatives and design climate

and cost-effective mitigation portfolios. 3.  Monitoring actual C dynamics following implementation of actions. 4.  GHG inventories report actual emissions, difference between baseline

and actual required to demonstrate effectiveness of investments. 5.  Investing into mitigation actions without monitoring will undermine the

credibility and sustainability of mitigation financing.

Analyses and monitoring required for C mitigation programs 55

§  Need to demonstrate that increased production of long-lived structural wood products results in emission reductions in other sectors. §  Wood exporting countries can work with importing countries to increase C retention

in HWP, reduce wood waste and maximise substitution benefits through building technology

§  Need better Life Cycle Analyses that further quantify the GHG emission reductions of different HWP uses.

§  Increased domestic use of wood products for bioeconomy & GHG reduction by Canada and other wood-exporting countries could affect global forest product trade.

Potential Challenges: Domestic use 56

57

§  Forest sector-based climate change mitigation activities require ongoing public support for forest management. §  Monitor and document sustainability of ecological services §  Requires strong adherence to principles of sustainable forest management §  Requires ongoing re-investment into forest management

§  Need to evaluate impacts of climate change mitigation actions on vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change.

§  Need to learn how forest management can increase forest ecosystem resilience to climate change.

Potential Challenges: Public Support 57

58

§  Climate change impacts on Canada’s forests are predicted to be large – both positive and negative.

§  Estimates of future net carbon balance remain highly uncertain.

§  If net impacts of climate change adversely affect forest sustainability and forest management is perceived to contribute to the problem, then public support for mitigation actions may be in question.

Potential Challenges: Climate Change 58

59

§  Design of climate change mitigation portfolios in the forest sector should account for changes in C in forest ecosystems, in harvested wood products, and for substitution benefits, relative to a base case.

§  Efficiency of mitigation activities varies among activities and by region, and no single strategy is best everywhere.

§  Best strategies focus on substitution and HWP C storage.

§  Forest managers do not control use of wood – effective mitigation activities need to integrate forest management with wood use strategies aimed at increasing life span of HWP and substitution of steel, concrete, plastics & fuels.

Conclusions (1/3) 59

60

§  Substantial mitigation potential by 2050 if the implementation of strategies starts soon.

§  Forest sector provides unique opportunities to manage sinks and contribute to negative emissions.

§  Even if costs per ton are competitive with others sectors, the total required investment into increased forest sinks is proportional to required sinks – and will be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars.

§  Requires public acceptance of investing funds into intensified and sustainable forest management.

Conclusions (2/3) 60

61

§  Regional differences (disturbance rates, ecology, response to climate change, management intensity) likely to affect choice of most efficient mitigation options.

§  Design of mitigation strategies needs to anticipate climate change impacts and consider contributions to adaptation.

§  As societies seek to reduce GHG emissions and increase sinks, the forest sector can make a meaningful and sustained contribution if the social license to do so can be established and maintained.

Conclusions (3/3) 61

62

Werner Kurz werner.kurz@canada.ca Publications at: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/search?query=Kurz

63

Kurz et al. 2016. Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva 246 (67): 61-67. www.fao.org/3/a-i6419e.pdf Lemprière et al. 2017. Cost of climate change mitigation involving’s Canada’s forest sector. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0348 http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0348 Smyth et al. 2016. Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada. Glob. Chg. Biol. Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12387 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12387/abstract Smyth et al. 2016. Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. Glob. Chg. Biol. Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12389 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12389/abstract Xu et al. 2017. Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. DOI: 10.1007/s11027-016-9730-z http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7.

Recent Publications