1. 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

2. Background Methods Results Conclusions
Outline
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions

3. “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

4. 2016
58% of woodlands under active management
2060 Target:
80% of woodlands managed

5. 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?

6. Background Methods Results Conclusions
Outline
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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 Forest Ecology and Management

12. Background Methods Results Conclusions
Outline
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions

13. 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

14. Restoring management to: Overstocked broadleaved forest
Snapshot
Emission
Saving

15. Restoring management to: Understocked and overgrazed forest
Snapshot
Emission
Saving

16. 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

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

18. “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

19. 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)

20. Background Methods Results Conclusions
Outline
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 or google me
Special thanks to all the people who made and released this awesome presentation template: SlidesCarnival