The carbon implications of restoring management to neglected forests in England Carly Whittaker, Robert Matthews, Ewan Mackie, and Ian Shield International Bioenergy Conference, Manchester 22-23rd March 2017

Background Methods Results Conclusions Outline Background Methods Results Conclusions

“England’s undermanaged forests could provide 2 mt woodfuel”* 2007 “England’s undermanaged forests could provide 2 mt woodfuel”* GJ 250,000 CO2 1.5 Mt Reversing decline in Biodiversity Job creation and economic growth * Per year

2016 58% of woodlands under active management 2060 Target: 80% of woodlands managed

Aim of this study What is the likely impact of this activity on net GHG emissions in England? How does this depend on the type of the forest? How does the impact vary over different time horizons? Are the impacts sensitive to intensity in which management is restored? Can negative impacts be managed by integration with complementary afforestation activities?

Background Methods Results Conclusions Outline Background Methods Results Conclusions

Concept and plan Step 1 Identify what an ‘undermanaged’ forest is 7 scenarios Build forests in CARBINE model developed by Forest Research Step 2 Identify management options Low/med/high Clearfell and restock Do nothing? Step 3 Model carbon impact of management using CARBINE and LCA

Carbon in trees, soil and litter CARBINE+LCA Carbon in trees, soil and litter Carbon in biomass Carbon in products End of life The temporal carbon flows are modelled in CARBINE, as the forest grows it models how carbon builds up in trees, soil and litter. During harvesting of biomass and timber, some of this is recycled back into the site and goes into the litter and soil pools. It is assumed that biomass enters the biomass supply chain and the carbon is released during combustion. Carbon is also stored in products such as paper, timber, pallets, fencing etc., the fate of the stored carbon depends on a) its use-life, and b) how it is disposed of. A life cycle analysis is used (on top of CARBINE) to track all of these carbon flows over time. Combustion Recycled Landfilled

Compare with ‘counterfactual’ system Carbon in trees, soil and litter + Counterfactual products Restoration of management Do nothing

Forest types and their estimated area 1305 kha Managed 756 kha Coppice + standards 39 kha Unmanaged 511 kha Total area Managed and non-managed Under-managed woodland coverage Understocked & overgrazed 45 kha Overstocked broadleaved 77 kha Neglected + Chalara threat 57 kha Under grazed meadow Failed woodland 9 kha Moribund conifer 61 kha Remaining unmanaged 261 kha

Implementation timescale Management plan 80% of area managed by 2060 Starts now: 43 years to complete Afforestation activities How many ha would off-set any negative GHG impacts? Eliasson et al. 2013. Forest Ecology and Management. 290. 67-78

Background Methods Results Conclusions Outline Background Methods Results Conclusions

Response to management: Emitted vs. avoided GHG emissions Loss of soil carbon stocks From biomass burning & product disposal Forest operations/ manufacturing/ transport Emission Emission of GHG “Do nothing” Accumulative average change vs. “do nothing” (kt C/area/year) Saving Avoided GHG emissions Gain of forest carbon Carbon stored in products Avoided fossil combustion and counterfactual product manufacture

Restoring management to: Overstocked broadleaved forest Snapshot Emission Saving

Restoring management to: Understocked and overgrazed forest Snapshot Emission Saving

Combining scenarios into a package Forest Type Selected Coppice with standards Med Under-grazed meadow High Understocked woodland Overstocked broadleaved Overstocked (high ash tree) Failed Forest Moribund conifer Selected package: Avoids “extreme” scenarios Meaningful intervention 400,000 t output/year (2060) 250,000 t fuel 150,000 t products Doubles with longer-term (2117) Preliminary - may change when we have more information on Biodiversity Costs/economics

Combining impacts How many ha of new woodlands needed to achieve net GHG reduction?

“What do we want?” Net GHG reduction “When do we want it?” ... E.g. By 2060: Requires 2,000 ha per year from now until 2060 Afforested lands also managed- additional biomass supply Production: 800,000 t/yr Production: 8,000,000 t/yr

England’s afforestation targets 2,000 ha/year? 2013 Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement: “Increase woodland cover from 10% to 12% by 2060” -Equivalent to a little over 5,000 ha/yr Current commitment is to plant 11 million trees ~2,000 ha/yr (RDP programme document for England)

Background Methods Results Conclusions Outline Background Methods Results Conclusions

Conclusions GHG impacts of forest restoration depend on type of forest and intensity of intervention Specific cases (high initial stocking) involve significant increases in GHG over decades or longer When there is a low tree stock or poor productivity, management generally has a positive impact More ‘extreme’ intervention may have higher initial emissions, but can recover over time It may be possible to tailor management options to achieve differing goals If you focus on just management restoration you can mitigate net GHG emissions by 2nd half of century

Conclusions… Complementary afforestation Further work? Can mitigate negative GHG impacts. An integrated restoration and afforesation policy can achieve net GHG reduction by mid-century – or earlier with more rapid planting Continue making useful GHG reductions through later half of century Further work? Identify how the management plans would be implemented Verify the types of forests in England’s landscapes Consider additional impacts of management biodiversity/economics

Thank you Any questions? Thank you to Mark Broadmeadow and Ian Tubby for help with determining forest areas Thank you to the Supergen Bioenergy Hub for funding this research You can find me at Carly.whittaker@Rothamsted.ac.uk or google me Special thanks to all the people who made and released this awesome presentation template: SlidesCarnival