More future synergies and less trade-offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions.

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of "natural climate solution" (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020-2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

Considering Future Potential Regarding Structural Diversity in Selection of Forest Reserves.

A rich structural diversity in forests promotes biodiversity. Forests are dynamic and therefore it is crucial to consider future structural potential when selecting reserves, to make robust conservation decisions. We analyzed forests in boreal Sweden based on 17,599 National Forest Inventory (NFI) plots with the main aim to understand how effectiveness of reserves depends on the time dimension in the selection process, specifically by considering future structural diversity. In the study both the economic value and future values of 15 structural variables were simulated during a 100 year period. To get a net present structural value (NPSV), a single value covering both current and future values, we used four discounting alternatives: (1) only considering present values, (2) giving equal importance to values in each of the 100 years within the planning horizon, (3) applying an annual discount rate considering the risk that values could be lost, and (4) only considering the values in year 100. The four alternatives were evaluated in a reserve selection model under budget-constrained and area-constrained selections. When selecting young forests higher structural richness could be reached at a quarter of the cost over almost twice the area in a budget-constrained selection compared to an area-constrained selection. Our results point to the importance of considering future structural diversity in the selection of forest reserves and not as is done currently to base the selection on existing values. Targeting future values increases structural diversity and implies a relatively lower cost. Further, our results show that a re-orientation from old to young forests would imply savings while offering a more extensive reserve network with high structural qualities in the future. However, caution must be raised against a drastic reorientation of the current old-forest strategy since remnants of ancient forests will need to be prioritized due to their role for disturbance-sensitive species.

Cost-effective age structure and geographical distribution of boreal forest reserves.

1. Forest reserves are established to preserve biodiversity, and to maintain natural functions and processes. Today there is heightened focus on old-growth stages, with less attention given to early successional stages. The biodiversity potential of younger forests has been overlooked, and the cost-effectiveness of incorporating different age classes in reserve networks has not yet been studied.2. We performed a reserve selection analysis in boreal Sweden using the Swedish National Forest Inventory plots. Seventeen structural variables were used as biodiversity indicators, and the cost of protecting each plot as a reserve was assessed using the Heureka system. A goal programming approach was applied, which allowed inclusion of several objectives and avoided a situation in which common indicators affected the result more than rare ones. The model was limited either by budget or area.3. All biodiversity indicators were found in all age classes, with more than half having the highest values in ages ≥ 100 years. Several large-tree indicators and all deadwood indicators had higher values in forests 0-14 years than in forests 15-69 years.4. It was most cost-effective to protect a large proportion of young forests since they generally have a lower net present value compared to older forests, but still contain structures of importance for biodiversity. However, it was more area-effective to protect a large proportion of old forests since they have a higher biodiversity potential per area.5. The geographical distribution of reserves selected with the budget-constrained model was strongly biassed towards the north-western section of boreal Sweden, with a large proportion of young forest, whereas the area-constrained model focussed on the south-eastern section, with dominance by the oldest age class.6.Synthesis and applications. We show that young forests with large amounts of structures important to biodiversity such as dead wood and remnant trees are cheap and cost-efficient to protect. This suggests that reserve networks should incorporate sites with high habitat quality of different forest ages. Since young forests are generally neglected in conservation, our approach is of interest also to other forest biomes where biodiversity is adapted to disturbance regimes resulting in open, early successional stages.