Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Rethinking forest carbon assessments to account for policy institutions

Nature Climate Change volume 5, pages 946–949 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

There has been extensive debate about whether the sustainable use of forests (forest management aimed at producing a sustainable yield of timber or other products) results in superior climate outcomes to conservation (maintenance or enhancement of conservation values without commercial harvesting)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Most of the relevant research has relied on consequential life-cycle assessment (LCA), with the results tending to show that sustainable use has lower net greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions than conservation in the long term1,2,3,4,5. However, the literature cautions that results are sensitive to forest- and market-related contextual factors: the carbon density of the forests, silvicultural and wood processing practices, and the extent to which wood products and forest bioenergy displace carbon-intensive alternatives. Depending on these issues, conservation can be better for the climate than sustainable use1,6,7,8. Policy institutions are another key contextual factor but, so far, they have largely been ignored1,2,3,4,5,6. Using a case study on the Southern Forestry Region (SFR) of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, we show how policy institutions can affect the assessed outcomes from alternative forest management strategies. Our results highlight the need for greater attention to be paid to policy institutions in forest carbon research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Basic scenarios—difference between the sustainable use reference case and the conservation scenario as cumulative net GHG emissions.
Figure 2: Global scenarios—difference between the sustainable use reference case and the conservation scenario as cumulative net GHG emissions.
Figure 3: National scenarios—difference between the sustainable use reference case and the conservation scenario as cumulative net GHG emissions.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bustamente, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 11 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nabuurs, G. J. et al. in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation (eds Metz, B. et al.) Ch. 9, (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Perez-Garcia, J., Lippke, B., Comnick, J. & Manriquez, C. An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood Fibre Sci. 37, 140–148 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sathre, R. & O’Connor, J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 104–114 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lippke, B. et al. Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: Knowns and unknowns. Carbon Manage. 2, 303–333 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lamers, P. & Junginger, M. The ‘debt’ is in the detail: A synthesis of recent temporal forest carbon analyses on woody biomass for energy. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 7, 373–385 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zanchi, G., Pena, N. & Bird, N. Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 761–772 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell, S. R., Harmon, M. E. & O’Connell, K. Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 818–827 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Univ. Chicago Press, 1991).

  10. Hodgson, G. M. What are institutions? J. Econ. Issues 40, 1–25 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sandén, B. A. & Karlström, M. Positive and negative feedback in consequential life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1469–1481 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Finnveden, G. et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1–21 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Ximenes, F., George, B., Cowie, A., Williams, J. & Kelly, G. Greenhouse gas balance of native forests in New South Wales, Australia. Forests 3, 653–683 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Oliver, C. D., Nassar, N. T., Lippke, B. & McCarter, J. B. Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J. Sustain. For. 33, 248–275 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lamers, P., Junginger, M., Dymond, C. C. & Faaij, A. Damaged forests provide an opportunity to mitigate climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 44–60 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. NSW Forest Agreements Implementation Reports 1999 to 2010 (NSW Government, 2004 to 2011).

  18. Integrated Forestry Operations Approval Annual Reports, Eden and Southern RFA Areas 2001 to 2013 (Forestry Corporation of NSW, 2001 to 2013).

  19. Hiraishi, T. et al. (eds) 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol (IPCC, 2014).

  20. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences Australian Forest and Wood Products Statistics (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eggleston, S. et al. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sawn Timber in Australia 2012–2026 (BIS Shrapnel, 2012).

  23. Whittle, L., Berry, P. & Heyhoe, E. Leakage from Avoided Clearing and Harvesting of Native Forests under the CFI: A Quantitative Assessment (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Macintosh, A. The Australian Native Forest Sector: Causes of the Decline and Prospects for the Future (The Australia Institute, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Australian Government Emissions Reduction Fund White Paper (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Forests NSW Performance Audit Report: Yield Forecasts – Southern Regional Forest Agreement, South Coast Sub-region (NSW Government, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Forests NSW Performance Audit Report: Yield Forecasts – Southern Regional Forest Agreement, Tumut Sub-region (NSW Government, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Forests NSW Performance Audit Report: Yield Forecasts – Eden Regional Forest Agreement (NSW Government, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  29. NSW Government NSW Forest Agreements Implementation Report 2008–2009 (NSW Government, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. NSW Government NSW Forest Agreements Implementation Report 2009–2010 (NSW Government, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Australian Government National Inventory Report 2012: The Australian Government Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Richards, G. & Evans, D. Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Aust. For. 67, 277–283 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. NSW Government Integrated Forestry Operations Approval for the Southern Region (NSW Government, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ximenes, F., Gardner, W. D. & Marchant, J. Total Biomass Measurement and Recovery of Biomass in Log Products in Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) Forests of SE NSW (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rothe, A. Forest Biomass for Energy: Current and Potential Use in Tasmania and a Comparison with European Experience (University of Applied Sciences, Weihenstephan, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Farine, D. R. et al. An assessment of biomass for bioelectricity and biofuel, and for greenhouse gas emission reduction in Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 4, 148–175 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Illic, J., Boland, D., McDonald, M., Downes, G. & Blackmore, P. Wood Density Phase 1—State of Knowledge (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bertalanffy, L. Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q. Rev. Biol. 32, 217–231 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Richards, F. J. A flexible growth function for empirical use. J. Exp. Bot. 10, 290–300 (1959).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Richards, G. et al. Developing a carbon stocks and flows model for Australian wood products. Aust. For. 70, 108–119 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tucker, S. N. et al. Life Cycle Inventory of Australian Forestry and Wood Products (Forest Wood Products Australia, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment: 5.5 MW Biomass Power Plant—Report prepared for South East Fibre Exports (URS, 2009).

  43. Australian Government Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  44. State Forests of NSW Social, Environmental and Economic Reports (Forestry Commission of NSW, 2000–2003).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Forests NSW Social, Environmental and Economic Reports (NSW Government, 2004–2007).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Forests NSW Annual Reports (NSW Government, 2008–2012).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bureau of Rural Sciences Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Annual Report 2012–13: Sustainability Supplement (Forestry Corporation of NSW, 2013).

  49. FAOSTAT: ForesSTAT (FAO, 2014).

  50. Timber Market Survey (URS, 2014).

  51. Sein, C. C. & Mitlöhner, R. Eucalyptus Urophylla S. T. Blake: Ecology and Silviculture (CIFOR, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Emission Factors Compilation (WRI, 2012).

  53. Brander, M. et al. Electricity-Specific Emission Factors for Electricity Generation (Ecometrica, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Berry, N. J. et al. The high value of logged tropical forests: lessons from northern Borneo. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 985–997 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ziegler, A. D. et al. Carbon outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: Great uncertainties and REDD + policy implications. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 3087–3099 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gibbs, H. et al. Monitoring and estimating tropical carbon forest stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 045023 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Buhaug, Ø. et al. Second IMO GHG Study 2009 (International Maritime Organization, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Smith, T. et al. Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (International Maritime Organization, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Koop, K., Koper, M., Bijsma, R., Wonink, S. & Ouwens, J. D. Evaluation of Improvements in End-Conversion Efficiency for Bioenergy Production (European Commission, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Clean Energy Regulator Greenhouse and Energy Information 2012–2013 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Australian Government Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, ANU College of Law, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia

    Andrew Macintosh

  2. Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia

    Heather Keith & David Lindenmayer

Authors
  1. Andrew Macintosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Keith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Lindenmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.M. designed the research, analysed data, created the models and drafted and revised the paper. H.K. assisted with data analysis and drafting and revising the paper. D.L. helped draft and revise the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Macintosh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.M. is the Chair of the Australian Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, a statutory body responsible for overseeing carbon offset methods developed for the purpose of the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund. The content of the letter reflects his personal views, not those of the Committee or the Australian Government.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macintosh, A., Keith, H. & Lindenmayer, D. Rethinking forest carbon assessments to account for policy institutions. Nature Clim Change 5, 946–949 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2695

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2695

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing