As well as reducing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, the most important measure to mitigate human-induced climate change is to conserve, restore and enhance the productivity of natural ecosystems as natural carbon sinks and sinks. It has been calculated that terrestrial biota absorbs through photosynthesis up to one third of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning fossil fuels, i.e., about 11.4 billion tons per year. But carbon sequestration is also increasing as a result of deforestation, forest fires, the death of trees, and increased respiration by plants and other living groups through rising temperatures.
In this context, a great deal of attention has recently been paid to forestry projects aimed at the protection, restoration and improvement of forest ecosystems in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and to increase the amount of carbon stored in them. The importance of conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems (including forests) to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement was highlighted at the 27th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in November 2022 in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Forest-climatic projects belong to the category of nature-based solutions[1] and have a number of additional benefits, such as biodiversity conservation, water regulation, soil protection from erosion, etc., which allows these projects to be considered and evaluated not only in terms of mitigation of, but also adaptation to, global anthropogenic climate change, not to mention their role as providers of ecosystem services and as sources of essential resources, jobs and income for local people.
The world has accumulated considerable experience in implementing forest climate projects, including under the Kyoto Protocol (in force from 2008 to 2020) and other regulated and voluntary carbon markets. In Russia, the necessary conditions for the implementation of climate projects in general and forest climate projects in particular are only emerging. The criteria for classifying projects as climate projects, the procedure for reporting on the implementation of climate projects have been developed and approved; a register of carbon units has been created and started to operate, in which the registration of climate projects and the issue of carbon units based on the results of such projects. The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation has developed a Concept Paper on the system of accounting, registration, issuance, transfer and offsetting of the results of climate projects carried out in the Russian Federation, while the Federal Forestry Agency has prepared a draft law on the implementation of climate projects in forests. Both documents are under consideration by the Russian Government and may be approved in 2023.
The only successful forestry project in Russia that has passed all formal procedures under the Kyoto Protocol up to the issuance and sale of carbon units to foreign buyers has been the Bikin forest conservation project in the Amur tiger habitat. It was developed on the initiative and with the participation of WWF Russia and Germany, supported by the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia and the German Ministry of Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, and the carbon units issued from the project were used to cover the carbon footprint of the Sochi Olympics in 2014.
A similar project in Altai, “Carbon sequestration through afforestation in remote areas of the Siberian region of the Russian Federation”, was less fortunate. It too was registered as a Kyoto project, but for various reasons the sale of carbon units on the international market never happened. Some of the project carbon units were subsequently sold to Russian companies to cover greenhouse gas emissions associated with economic activities or individual projects, including book publishing.
In 2013, Terneiles initiated a project that envisaged the preservation of certain forest areas on the forest lands leased by the company in an undisturbed condition. But the project was never officially approved and registered.
Types of forest climate projects and their main requirements
The main requirements for forest climate projects include additionality, permanence and no leakage[2].
The principle of additionality means that the climate outcome of the project is considered to be only the GHG emission reduction and/or increase in greenhouse gas sequestration which has occurred as a result of the additional measures taken, over and above the normal, established management practices, in accordance with the relevant legislation and customary business practices. In fact, those special, complementary measures intended to increase the net removals or reduce the net emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from economic activities carried out on forest land are, in accordance with the additionality principle, the subject of the forest climate project.
In order to assess the results of the project adequately, a so-called baseline has been established which reflects the greenhouse gas balance of the forest area in the “without project” situation. Accordingly, the project result and the amount of carbon units released are calculated as the difference between the net greenhouse gas emissions (or net removals) of the project and the baseline (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Calculation of the result of a forest climate project in terms of carbon units
The permanence principle requires that the project results in the form of CO2 uptake should be maintained over a long period (at least until the end of 2100). And “no leakage” refers to the guarantee that the measures taken by the project to reduce emissions or increase the absorption of greenhouse gases will not lead to the same or greater increase in greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere.
There are several types of forestry projects: afforestation (planting of forests on previously unforested areas), reforestation, improved forest management and prevention of conversion, i.e. conversion of forested land to non-forested land, among others. They all have their own characteristics, pluses and minuses.
Afforestation, or reforestation
Afforestation projects include planting or seeding on non-forested land, including land that is retired from agriculture. Such projects have a number of advantages. They are transparent and easy to verify. The additionality of the project can be easily justified. The baseline is practically zero, so it is easy to evaluate the outcome of the project.
In addition to CO2 sequestration, such projects can bring other benefits. For example, if they are implemented in the form of erosion control and field protection plantations that provide soil protection against water and wind erosion. This is particularly relevant in arid and sparsely forested regions, where there is a lack of protective plantations and some plantations have been lost.
On average, the net greenhouse gas absorption potential from afforestation is 10–15 tonnes CO2-eq. per hectare per year.
However, such projects also have quite obvious disadvantages and limitations. Firstly, there is not much suitable land in Russia for them. Secondly, growing new forests is obviously not a quick process. In terms of the balance of losses and carbon accumulation, planting a forest begins to pay for itself after 10–15 years. There are risks associated with the possible death of seedlings due to insufficient (weak) establishment or as a result of fires. In addition, care must be taken to ensure that afforestation projects do not lead to the disappearance of valuable non-forest ecosystems (steppes, meadows) and habitats of rare protected species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and regional red lists.
Contrary to the popular opinion among forestry neophytes, the expediency of using fast-growing species (paulownia) or perennial grasses (miscanthus) is highly questionable. A high CO2 uptake rate does not guarantee reliable and long-term carbon storage. The full life cycle of the plant and its products must be taken into account, as well as possible undesirable side effects. It is well known, for example, that introduced species can significantly alter an established ecosystem by displacing native flora and fauna species. Such introductions are called biological contamination, and this is clearly not what should be pursued. With this in mind, preference should be given to native tree and shrub species.
Special mention should be made of forestry projects on overgrown agricultural land. The legal status of such projects is not entirely clear. The very possibility of forestry on agricultural land is questionable. The legislation of the Russian Federation establishes strict requirements for the protection, conservation and care of forests in this category of land.[3] And the amendments to this legislation[4] adopted this year sharply increase the administrative and regulatory burden and actually introduce a ban on rural forestry.
The downside of afforestation is a reduction in the albedo effect, i.e. the ability of the earth’s surface to reflect solar radiation, due to the darkening of previously open land. This is particularly the case in boreal forests.
Reforestation
Reforestation projects include planting or seeding activities (establishment of forest cultures) in areas that have temporarily lost their stand as a result of natural or anthropogenic disturbances (clearcuts, burnt areas, etc.). Such activities are important for the reproduction of valuable forest resources (mainly conifers), but their compliance with the criteria of forest-climatic projects is questionable.
First of all, it concerns the principle of additionality, as most of the forest land is perfectly recovering naturally — mainly at the expense of small-leaved species (birch, aspen, alder, willow). Accordingly, the baseline will reflect significant CO2 uptake from natural overgrowth of clearcuts and burnt areas, against which the additional (compared to the baseline) CO2 uptake from project-created forest crops may be negligible or zero. The result can, in principle, also be negative, if CO2 uptake by the crops produced is lower than that of naturally overgrown cuttings and burnt areas[5]. In this case, the reforestation activity would not be a forest-climatic project.
On average, the additional net greenhouse gas removals from reforestation measures can be up to 3 tonnes of CO2-eq. per hectare per year.
In any case, reforestation measures start to pay for themselves even later than with afforestation, as the units are counted by the difference from the baseline.
The disadvantages of this type of project also include their high labour intensity and high cost (site clearance, soil preparation, planting, crop supplementation, repeated tending), as well as high risks of crop damage and mortality, which may ultimately lead not to additional CO2 uptake, but rather to reduced CO2 uptake relative to the baseline.
The use of different species in reforestation work deserves a separate discussion. Most often, monocultures of spruce or pine, or small-leaved forests dominated by birch and/or aspen are established in place of dead stands, clearcuts and burnt areas. However, the establishment of monocultures over wide areas has a number of negative consequences. In addition to the reduction of biodiversity (genetic, species and ecosystems), these include a decrease in soil fertility, a sharp increase in the risk of outbreaks of pathogenic microorganisms and phytophagous insects, and an increase in fire danger (especially in the case of pine monocultures). All this increases the risks of damage and death in new plantations, and in addition poses additional threats to local communities.
With this in mind, it is recommended to design mixed forest crops of native tree species using mathematical modelling methods (e.g. using EFIMOD, CO2fix models, etc.) to predict the results and choose the best reforestation scenarios. Similar to afforestation projects, the use of introduced species is undesirable in reforestation[6].
Preventing deforestation and forest land conversion
The positive side of forest conservation projects is not so much that they increase CO2 uptake, but that they prevent possible emissions from logging. Additional benefits of this type of project include the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services of forests.
However, there can be carbon leakages associated with the project because an industry is likely to harvest an equivalent amount of wood from another site, which may not decrease greenhouse gas emissions but may even increase them. In addition, there is no guarantee that after termination of the lease or change of ownership, the forest area will be preserved from logging.
In general, such projects are suitable for intact forests with a high carbon stock and high biodiversity, but in general they raise many questions and doubts. They are too opaque and the risk of carbon leakage is too high, depriving the project of its main value and therefore its meaning.
Improving (improving the quality of) forest management
Increasing carbon stocks through measures to optimise forest management can be achieved in a number of ways. A significant effect can be achieved by reforestation using species that provide improved carbon accumulation not only in biomass, but also in the soil, increasing the age of harvesting, transition from clearcuts to selective logging with reliance on natural regeneration of stands, minimizing the loss of carbon in soil organic matter during logging, abandoning the formation of coniferous monocultures and forming mixed stands of different ages, resistant to pests and diseases, proper use of fertilizers and forest fire protection (including the creation of early warning and fire fighting systems).
Depending on the measures used, the potential for net emission reduction or net increase in GHG removals from this type of project could be between 5 and 20 tonnes CO2-eq. per hectare per year.
The main difficulty with such projects is that they require highly qualified workers with excellent knowledge of the biology and ecology of tree species, which, unfortunately, is not often the case. It is difficult to find such specialists even in specialized institutes, not to mention local forestries and leskhozes. Another problem is the delayed effect of the project. As a rule, the result of improving forest management methods and practices becomes apparent after 40–50 years, and only if consistency and continuity in the application of new forest management methods is ensured over a long period.
Fertiliser application
Fertilization of forests will have the greatest effect in moderately productive growing conditions with sufficient but not excessive moisture, 1–2 appraisal classes below the regional maximum at the age of maximum current wood growth (40–70 years for conifers). The increase in carbon sequestration is achieved by increasing the stocks of phytomass, large woody debris, as well as carbon in the soil. At the same time, the additional GHG emissions for the project include emissions from extraction, processing, delivery and combustion of fossil fuels used for fertilizers (CO2, CH4, N2O), direct and indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen fertilizers, CO2 emissions from lime treatment and urea application.
The additional net greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the fertiliser application are estimated to be in the range of 0.5 to 3.0 tonnes CO2-eq. per hectare per year.
Disadvantages of the project include the high risk of reducing biodiversity and eutrophication of water bodies[7].
Fire/disturbance prevention in managed forests
Protection of forests from fires and rapid extinguishing of forest fires is relevant for Russia. Positive aspects of the project include conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services of forests. Additionality can be established if the project provides for additional forest protection and conservation measures beyond those regulated by the current norms and regulations. For example, fire suppression in an area where fires are not allowed to be extinguished if they do not threaten settlements and infrastructure.
The annual average greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires in the region are taken as a baseline[8]. Carbon units are calculated each year from the difference between the actual annual greenhouse gas emissions from forest fires (plus emissions from fossil fuel combustion during project implementation) and the annual average historical baseline.
The GHG emission reduction potential of this type of project may be 0.1 to 0.4 tonnes of CO2-eq. per hectare per year, which necessitates project implementation on large areas.
The advantage of this type of project is that it can be phased out at any time. There is no need to maintain the project for a long time and ensure continuity.
Conversion of forests from unmanaged to managed
One of the most transparent and promising types of forestry projects is the conversion of forests from unmanaged to managed. Additionality is easy to establish, as forest conservation and protection measures are not implemented in unmanaged forests, nor are forests’ CO2 uptake and emissions from disturbances taken into account. For the same reason, the baseline is zero[9]. Carbon units are written out every year, starting in the first year, and the entire net greenhouse gas absorption of the project area is counted.
The potential for increased greenhouse gas uptake from this type of project is estimated at 1–3 tonnes of CO2-eq per hectare per year.
The main challenge is the need to ensure that the result is maintained over time and that the project is continued indefinitely, as, according to current regulations, the area of managed forests can be increased but cannot be reduced.
Use of harvested timber and wood waste
A special type of forest climate project is one that stores carbon not in growing stock biomass or soil organic matter, but in harvested wood products. The primary use of harvested and exported wood is for building materials. In this case, a decrease in the carbon stock in the stand due to harvesting and removal of wood from the forest is not the same as an emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, but a transfer of this stock from one pool to another.
This does not remove any additional carbon from the atmosphere. However, there is a reduction in CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by replacing other building materials that emit greenhouse gases (such as concrete) with wood.
In addition to lumber, other carbon-intensive materials can also be produced from salvaged wood. For example, biochar, which can be used in agriculture to improve soil fertility[10].
Such projects can be combined with other silvicultural projects, such as afforestation, reforestation and improved forest management, and serve as natural extensions and complements, prolonging the period of carbon sequestration from the atmosphere during the active growth period of the plantation.
Another possibility is the use of wood residues (non-liquid wood from thinning, sanitary felling, felling residues, sawmill residues, etc.) for the production of biofuel (pellets, briquettes, etc.) and/or energy. There is no carbon storage in biomaterials, but fossil carbon in the subsoil, because instead of fossil fuels for energy production, biofuels produced by removing carbon from the atmosphere are burned.
Risks
The main risks of forest-climatic projects are a) carbon leakage, b) loss of stands due to fire, disease and other causes, and c) loss of project funding. Despite the different nature of these risks, they have the same effect: complete or partial destruction of project results in the form of additional carbon storage in stands and soil organic matter due to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere — at the project site (in the case of a forest fire, other forest disturbance or termination of project financing) or outside the project site (in the case of leakage).
These risks can be managed through a system of forest insurance against fire and the risk of project financing being discontinued, or through the formation of a reserve fund of carbon units. However, there are no established rules and requirements and the instruments are still underdeveloped.
Therefore, forest climate projects should be approached with caution. It is only at first glance it seems very simple and straightforward. In reality, it is one of the most difficult types of climate change projects. This is not only because these projects require specialist knowledge and skills, but also because they are subject to natural and other risks that are difficult to control and manage.
In any case, the choice of actions to meet these climate objectives should begin with measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at source, and carbon sequestration should be used to offset emissions from sources that cannot be addressed with adequate low-carbon technologies.
[1] Natural climate solutions. An overview of international approaches. — Department of Multilateral Economic Cooperation and Special Projects of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. — Moscow, 2022.
[2] The greenhouse gas protocol. The land use, land-use change, and forestry guidance for GHG project accounting. Washington: Word Resource Institute, 2006. 97 p.
[3] See Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1509 of 21.09.2020 “On Peculiarities of Use, Protection, Protection and Reproduction of Forests Located on Agricultural Land”.
[4] See Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 08.06.2022 No. 1043 “On amendments to the Regulation on peculiarities of use, protection, conservation and regeneration of forests located on agricultural land”.
[5] Shanin V. N. N., Frolov P. V., Korotkov V. N. Can artificial reforestation always be a forest-climatic project? // Voprosy lesnoy nauki. — 2022. — Vol. 5, No 2. — P. 106. DOI: 10.31509/2658-607x-202252-106.
[6] The Forest Sanitary Safety Regulations, approved by RF Government Decree No. 2047 of 09.12.2020, prohibit “the breeding and use of plants, animals and other organisms that are not indigenous to natural ecological systems, as well as those created artificially, without developing effective measures to prevent their uncontrolled reproduction”.
[7] Eutrophication — increased concentrations of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) due to surface runoff, leading to water ‘blooming’ (mass development of phytoplankton) and a sharp deterioration in water quality.
[8] Strictly speaking, adjustments should be made for climate change and the consequent increase in the number of hot and dry days, and consequently in the number of forest fires. However, the principle of conservatism requires that under no circumstances should the baseline be overestimated, nor should assumptions that might lead to such overestimation be used.
[9] The zero baseline needs to be specifically justified and validated, as processes related to CO2 emissions and uptake naturally occur in unmanaged forests as well. And they do not always occur evenly. Some areas (e.g. overgrown burnt areas) may contain young, fast-growing forest, while other areas may contain old growth decaying stands infested by pathogens or phytophagous insects. It is clear that the result of transferring these forest areas to the managed category will be different. Therefore, the conversion must be done randomly and the area to be converted must be large enough.
[10] See https://lesprominform.ru/jarticles.html?id=5817 и https://www.growlight.ru/content/7-biochar
Cover photo: Unsplash / Irina Iriser
Comments