Andis Lazdiņš, LSFRI SilavaRiga street 111, Salaspils LV-2169Phone: +37126595586, Fax: +37167901359, E-mail: andis.lazdins@silava.lv

Tool for modelling GHG emissions related to forest management in

Latvia

JRC technical workshop on reporting LULUCF27 February – 1 March 2013, Ispra

Joint Research Center (JRC), Via Fermi, conference room 3/36

The rationale and concept

● Rationale behind – lessons learned by the forest management reference level (country specific activity data, coefficients and assumptions should be developed and used).

● The tool – as simple as possible, multiple fields of usage (spreadsheet with transparent functions and activity data structure relevant to the NFI and other data sources).

● The most of work behind:– recalculation of historical data (1990-2004) – backward calculation on the

base of the NFI data; – key innovations – mortality and increment factors.

Structure of the model● Living biomass (gross annual increment of living biomass).● Mortality (natural reduction of number of trees and decay).● Commercial harvesting (decay of harvesting residues,

fractions of incinerated and extracted biomass).● Harvested wood products (JRC FMRL method, only locally

produced HWP considered).● Emission from organic soils (Tier 1), mineral soils

considered CO2 neutral, except drained soils (N2O).● Fire – incineration of harvesting residues and forest fires.● Recent additions:

– deforestation (living biomass, litter, dead wood, soil);– afforestation (living biomass, litter, dead wood).

Gross annual increment of living biomass

● Increment figures on the base of the NFI, historical recalculations (before 2004) was done in conjunction with mortality rate estimations (one of possible scenarios).

● Species, age and dimensions specific increment equations.● Species specific wood densities, different BEFs for

coniferous and deciduous trees (will be improved).● Some facts about living biomass:

– average gross increment in 2011 – 9.1 m3 ha-1, in 1990 – 8.4 m3 ha-1 (much better than previously used, because of significant changes in forest management practice);

– better mortality equations than those in forestry text books elaborated on the base of considerably exhausted forests 80 years ago (selective felling dominated management).

Increment figures19

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

12

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

Aspen Grey alder Birch Spruce Black alder Oak, ash Other species Pine

Tota

l bio

mas

s, kt

ons a

nnua

lly

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

8000

8200

8400

8600

8800

9000

9200

55.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.8

Gross increment in woody biomass, ktons C annually Gross annual increment, tons ha-1 annually

Gg C

ann

ually

tons

ha¯

¹ ann

ually

Mortality and decay

● Species specific coefficients of mortality:– reduction of number of trees (do not depend on size of tree); – affecting factors – age of stand and average dimensions of trees, – average mortality in 2004-2008 – 1.5 m3 ha-1.

● Calculations on the base of NFI using backward calculation for 5 years period (complicate to consider commercial thinning due to change of forest practice after 1990).

● Decomposition period – 20 years (mortality since 1970 considered as emissions, will be updated).

● Constant mortality values considered for periods before 1990.

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

Net e

miss

ions

from

dea

d w

ood,

Gg

CO

Net emissions due to natural mortality

Commercial felling

● Dominant species specific harvesting data since 1970 (1990-2011 Central statistical bureau, 1970-1989 research papers).

● Decomposition of crown and underground biomass – 20 years; species specific wood densities and different BEFs for coniferous and deciduous trees (Tier 1).

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

02 000 0004 000 0006 000 0008 000 000

10 000 00012 000 00014 000 00016 000 00018 000 000

Coniferous roundwood Deciduous roundwood Pulp wood Firewood

m³ a

nnua

lly

Harvested wood products

● The methodology utilized in Rüter, S., 2011. Projection of Net-Emissions from Harvested Wood Products in European Countries, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Hamburg.

● Necessary improvements – tree species dependant assortments' distribution (export should be returned to HWP).

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

-3 000

-2 500

-2 000

-1 500

-1 000

-500

0

500

1 000

Gg C

O

1 99

0

1 99

1

1 99

2

1 99

3

1 99

4

1 99

5

1 99

6

1 99

7

1 99

8

1 99

9

2 00

0

2 00

1

2 00

2

2 00

3

2 00

4

2 00

5

2 00

6

2 00

7

2 00

8

2 00

9

2 01

0

2 01

1

2 01

2

-5 000

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

Wood products Below-ground biomass Crown biomass Stem biomass Net emissions

Gg C

O

Summary of emissions due to commercial harvesting

Aspen

Grey alder

Birch

Spruce

Black alder

Oak, ash

Other species

Pine

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Share of assortments depending from dominant species

Coniferous roundwood Deciduous roundwoodPulp wood Firewood

1970-1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011-2020

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Structure of harvesting stock

Aspen Grey alder Birch SpruceBlack alder Oak, ash Other species Pine

Why dominant tree species are important for HWP accounting

Soil emissions

● Only emissions from drained soils are accounted (0.68 tons C ha-1 and 0.943 kg N2O ha-1 annually from organic soils and 0.094 kg N2O ha-1 annually from mineral soils).

● Area of organic soils in forest is still overestimated.

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

CO₂ fro organic soils N₂O from drained soils

Gg C

O e

q.

Fire● Forest fires:

– burnt biomass 19.8 tons ha-1, combustion factor 0.45;– forest fires related emissions – 0.1 % of the FM net removals.

● Harvesting residues:– 30 % left for incineration and 60 % of them actually incinerated until 2010

(since 2011 according to forest owner questionnaire about 7% of residues are left for incineration);

– CO2 accounted under harvesting, the rest is 0.1 % of the FM net removals.

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

020406080

100120140160180

Incineration of harvesting residues Forest fires

Gg C

O e

q

Actual data on incineration of harvesting residues

● In private forests 15 % of harvesting residues were left for incineration during last 3 years, in state forests no harvesting residues are left for incineration.

● Average = 7 % of harvesting residues, previous overestimation of emissions due to on-site incineration 400 %.

All

< 20 ha

20.1-100 ha

> 100.1 ha

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

49%49%

48%48%

55%55%

51%51%

15%15%

16%16%

10%10%

8%8%

14%14%

13%13%

18%18%

28%28%

13%13%

13%13%

12%12%

7%7%

7%7%

8%8%

4%4%

4%4%

1%1%

1%1%

1%1%

1%1%

Don't know Other Extracted as energy wood for free Extracted as energy wood for money Incinerated Left in forest

Summary

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

-40 000

-30 000

-20 000

-10 000

0

10 000

20 000

Fire Soil Dead wood HWP Harvesting Living biomass Total

Gg C

O₂

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

-30 000

-25 000

-20 000

-15 000

-10 000

-5 000

0

JRC tool 08.12.2011 Net emissions due to forest management

Gg C

O e

q

Additional conclusions

● National capacity in GHG accounting & projections should be strengthened and prioritized in decision making.

● Reporting & projections (decision support tools) should be integrated with planning as primary target.

● Many things can be done with limited resources, if climate change mitigation related issues are integrated with ongoing research work.

● We should concentrate on 2013-2020 and beyond instead of patching really complicated issues until 2014.

Comments, questions?Comments, questions?

Andis Lazdiņš, LSFRI SilavaAndis Lazdiņš, LSFRI Silava