Forest Management & Climate Policy in the Netherlands

(1)

Forest Management & Climate

Policy

in the Netherlands

Future Planet Studies Honours Research Project

(Dros, 2017)

Sofia Caycedo - 10695311 1st_{Supervisor: Boris Jansen} 2nd_{Supervisor: Bertus Tulleners}

(2)

University of Amsterdam July 10th_{, 2017}

Abstract

Forest ecosystems play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, storing more carbon than the entire atmosphere. In the light of pressing climate change issues, Dutch researchers and policy makers are continuously seeking ways in which rising greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated.

This literature study aimed to shed light on the viability of integrating forest management techniques for long-term carbon sequestration in climate policy in the Netherlands. This was achieved by analyzing the historical and current developments regarding Dutch climate policy, discussing which forest

management techniques are suitable for CO2 sequestration and

discussing if and how these techniques should be integrated into climate policy for CO2 mitigation in the Netherlands.

Both afforestation and management of existing forests could be effective when seeking to sequester carbon. However, there is a lack of research regarding the application of such techniques in the Netherlands and their cost-effectiveness. Additionally, political problems related to using afforestation for CO2 sequestration are the lack of space in the Netherlands, the competition for other types of land-use such as agriculture and the relatively low value of forestland. Besides this, the United Nations’ ‘Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry’ (LULUCF) carbon accounting rules could potentially prevent forest management from being a suitable means for the Netherlands to reach the climate targets set forth by the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

However, seeing as the current Dutch climate policies are not sufficient to allow the Netherlands to reach international climate targets, all options for CO2 mitigation need to be considered. More research should be devoted to analyzing the application and cost-effectiveness of Dutch forest management as a means to achieve CO2 mitigation, in order to adequately determine the viability of using forest management for climate action in the Netherlands.

Moreover, the Netherlands should potentially make an effort to influence the international LULUCF debate, in order to ensure that any future decisions that are made regarding LULUCF accounting rules will be beneficial to them.

(4)

Introduction

In the light of pressing climate change issues as a result of ongoing fossil fuel combustion, Dutch researchers and policy makers are continuously seeking new measures that can be taken in order to decrease as well as mitigate greenhouse gases. However, the Netherlands was not able to decrease its total CO2 emissions

between 1990 and 2015. In 2015, CO2 concentrations were 1.5%

above 1990 levels (Coenen et al., 2017).

Worldwide, forest ecosystems store more carbon than the entire atmosphere (Noble et al., 2000; Tubiello et al., 2015).

Approximately 7-12 % of European CO2 emissions are counteracted

by assimilation of CO2 in forests (Janssens et al., 2003). In the past

few decades, forests worldwide were responsible for as much

carbon sequestration as the oceans (Pan et al., 2011). Thus, there is an increasing interest in forest management techniques as a

potential way to decrease CO2 concentrations (Pan et al., 2011; Lal,

2005; De Deyn, Cornelissen & Bardgett, 2008)

The Kyoto Protocol states that the sequestration of carbon in forests is a potential way to mitigate increasing CO2 emissions

(Janssens et al., 2003). Moreover, terrestrial ecosystems – mainly forests- play a key role in the Paris Agreement. It states that

turning terrestrial ecosystems into net carbon sinks by 2030 should help countries worldwide to meet a quarter of their CO2 reduction

goals (Grassi et al., 2017). It is for this reason that many nations, including the Netherlands, are looking towards carbon

sequestration in forests as a potential way to meet the international targets set forth by the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement

(5)

(Jandl et al., 2007). However, there are still gaps in the knowledge regarding the effectiveness of such techniques (Nunery & Keaton, 2010). Moreover, little research has been devoted to studying which techniques should be integrated into policies aimed at decreasing CO2 concentrations in the Netherlands.

This paper aims to shed light on the effectiveness of

incorporating forest management aimed at enhancing long-term carbon sequestration into climate change policy in the Netherlands. In order to achieve this, a literature study was performed and an expert was interviewed. The main research question entails: What

is the viability of integrating forest management aimed at

enhancing long-term carbon sequestration in climate policy in the Netherlands?

Firstly, this paper will analyze the historical and current developments regarding climate policy in the Netherlands.

Secondly, it will discuss which forest management techniques are used for CO2 sequestration. Thirdly, it will discuss if and how these

techniques should be integrated into climate policy for CO2

mitigation in the Netherlands. The goal is gain insight into the scientific and political viability of using forest management techniques as a means for climate policy the Netherlands.

Climate Policy in the Netherlands

The Netherlands has a long history in the area of climate policy. In response to the climate conference in Toronto in 1988, the Dutch government organized an international conference in Noordwijk a year later. This conference, which brought environmental ministers from around the world together, would form the basis for the first United Nations climate resolution. In the same year, the ‘National Research Program for Global Air Pollution & Climate Change’ was initiated. This program would eventually aid the Netherlands in becoming the first country to formulate climate policy (Klosterman, Biesbroek & Gupta, 2007).

The growing international awareness regarding the dangers of rising greenhouse gas concentrations led countries to join the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(6)

global temperature increases through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, while working on dampening the unavoidable

impacts of climate change. The countries participating in the UNCFFF started negotiations in 1995, and adopted the Kyoto-protocol in 1997 (Schipper, 2006). This Kyoto-protocol committed industrialized nations to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions by 5% in 2012 relative to the base year level of 1990. When 55 countries had ratified the protocol in 2005, it became a binding international law for the participating nations (UNFCCC, 2017). With the ratification of the Kyoto-protocol, the Netherlands had adopted its first targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It committed to a 6 % reduction in 2008-2012 relative to 1990 levels (Klosterman, Biesbroek & Gupta, 2007).

In line with the Kyoto Protocol, participating countries are required to report to the UNFCCC on a regular basis regarding their greenhouse gas emissions as well as their efforts to reduce them (Patenaude, Milne & Dawson, 2005).This reporting also includes providing details on the carbon sources and sinks from the “Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry” (LULUCF) sector.

According to the UNFCCC, six types of land use are included in the LULUCF sectors, namely: forests, cropland, grasslands, wetlands, settlements and other types of land-use. Countries are required to submit early inventories of the carbon sources and sinks of the LULUCF sector, according to specific accounting guidelines. These inventories are then taken into account by the UNFCCC when calculating whether countries’ annual greenhouse gas emissions comply with the rules set forth by the Kyoto-protocol (Noble et al., 2000). Three categories are defined as forest according to the LULUCF accounting rules. The three categories include

‘Afforestation/Reforestation’, ‘Deforestation’ and ‘Forest

Management’. Afforestation and Reforestation are areas of land that were not categorized as forest before January 1st_{1990, but are} before December 31st_{of the accounting year. Deforestation are} areas of land that were categorized as forest before January 1st 1990, but were not on any date after January 1st_{1990. Any as} Deforestation categorized piece of land that is reforested, remains in the Deforestation category. Forest Management are areas of land that are considered forest, but do not fit in any of the other two categories (Arets et al., 2015). In 2021 the Kyoto Protocol will come to and end, and the reckoning of countries’ LULUCF CO2 sources and sinks will take place (Böttcher & Graichen, 2015).

The 2015 Paris Agreement was a new step in the direction of global efforts led by the UNFCCC to combat climate change. 195

(7)

member states agreed on the necessity for both the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. The non-binding goals set by the Paris Agreement aim to limit global temperature increases to 2 percent, while having zero emissions at the start of the 21st_century (Falkner, 2016). The Paris Agreement mentions the important role of the LULUCF sector in achieving worldwide climate change

mitigation (European Commission, 2017). Countries that signed the Paris Agreement are required to give substance to the agreement in their own manner according to the LULUCF rules of the Paris Agreement. After 2021 the Kyoto Protocol LULUCF accounting rules will expire, and the Paris Agreement will become the

guideline for LULUCF accounting (pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR).

In response to the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) has made steps to ensure that the targets set can be met by its member states

For instance, the European Climate Change Programme was set up in 2000 in order to help the EU meet Kyoto targets in the most cost-effective manner. Besides this, EU leaders set climate targets in 2007 through the 2020 climate and energy package. The targets, to be met my 2020, included: a 20% reduction in greenhouse

gas emissions relative to 1990 levels, 20% of EU energy from renewable sources, and a 20% improvement in energy efficiency. Moreover, EU leaders adopted new targets in 2014 under the 2030 Climate & Energy Framework, namely: a minimum of 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels, a minimum of 27% energy from renewable sources and a minimum of 27% increase in energy efficiency (all by 2030). A part of the 40% target is to be achieved through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (European Commission, 2017).

In 2016, the European Commission introduced a proposal to integrate LULUCF carbon source and sink accounting into the 2030 Climate & Energy Framework. This entailed binding agreements about LULUCF accounting rules throughout the EU, in order to achieve the goals that were set through the Paris Agreement. For instance, the proposal involves a binding agreement on the “no debit rule”, which entails that all emissions from the sector must be compensated by CO2 removal through other LULUCF activities.

While this rule and others were already set up to 2020 in the Kyoto-protocol, the new proposal ensured member states to commit to the new rules up to 2030 (European Commission, 2017).

The Netherlands has introduced several climate initiatives and policies of its own. The working program ‘Schoon en Zuinig’

(8)

was set up by several ministries in 2007 in order to stimulate the transition towards sustainable energy sources and reduce overall energy use in industry and households (Cramer, 2007). The

Energieakkoord – an initiative involving the government and several other organizations – was set up in 2013 in order to

continue the transition towards energy reduction and sustainable energy use. On a local level, initiatives aimed at combatting climate change are also evident. In 1990, the Bestuurs Akkoord Nieuwe Stijl was set up. This policy, initiated by different provinces and communities, was focused on combatting climate change on a local level. This policy was later transformed into the Stimulering Lokale Klimaatinitiatieven (SLOK) (Klosterman, Biesbroek & Gupta, 2007).

The focus of climate policy in the Netherlands is on taking measures to adapt to climate change, for instance through ensuring safety against rising sea levels and improving the resilience of the agricultural sector, as well as taking measures to mitigate climate change through a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and stimulating the transition towards sustainable energy use

(Rijksoverheid, 2017). Scientific findings, the goals set forth by the mentioned international treaties and specific national interests form the basis for these policies (Ministerie van Infrastructuur & Milieu, 2017). However, research has indicated that the current Dutch climate policy is not enough to reach the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement (van Vuuren et al., 2016; PBL, 2016).

The Netherlands’ projected CO2 emissions (megaton per year) until 2050. Red = emissions until now, purple = projected emissions with current climate policy, blue = emissions needed to reach the Paris Agreement (2 Celsius scenario) (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving via de Correspondent, 2017)

(9)

Forest Management Techniques

Afforestation

Both the Kyoto Protocol as well as the Paris Agreement recognizes afforestation as one of the ways to increase carbon sequestration in terrestrial sinks, as CO2 is sequestered in trees and forest soils (Schoene & Netto, 2005; European Commission, 2017). While agricultural land is a source of carbon under most circumstances, forestland is a potential sink. Thus, the conversion of agricultural land to forests can lead to a net increase in carbon sequestration (Post & Kwon, 2000).

The sequestration of forest soil carbon is a function of the input of carbon through litter and biomass and the output through leaching processes, respiration and decomposition (Cunningham et al., 2015). Carbon sequestration continues until the input starts equaling the output (Jandl et al., 2007). Schlesinger (1985)

estimated that converting agricultural land to forest could lead to a net increase in the soil carbon stock between 20-50 % (Schlesinger, 1986). However, research by Paul et al (2002) provides conflicting results. They analyzed data regarding soil carbon sequestration after afforestation projects worldwide, estimating the average change in soil carbon sequestration by taking the total change in soil carbon content divided by the total number of years since the establishment of the forest. Using this method, they found the change in soil carbon content to be highly variable, especially for young forests (<10 years): the soil carbon content either decreased

(10)

or increased for these forests. Moreover, they found that the carbon content increased on average for old forests (>30 years), but only by 0.5-0.96% per year. However, the researchers assumed that taking the forest floor into account would lead to a higher average percent increase (Paul et al., 2002).

The change in soil carbon content is dependent on several factors. Paul et al (2002) found the most important factors to be the former type of land use, the type of trees that were planted and the climate. For the top 30 cm of the soil, the most carbon accumulated under deciduous hardwood trees in short rotation forests, planted on former cropped land in (sub) tropical areas. However, net soil carbon sequestration also occurred in moist continental regions - which would also include the Netherlands – although to a lesser extent (Paul et al., 2002). Guo & Gifford (2002) also found previous land-use to be important for determining the net change in soil carbon content. Croplands that were transformed into secondary forests saw the highest increase in carbon content, the carbon content increasing with the age of the forest. Moreover, for pastures that were transformed into forest, the effect was

dependent on tree species. For plantations of coniferous species a decrease in soil carbon content was visible while for broadleaf plantations there was no net change. The small effect after

converting pastures was related to the already high carbon content in the soil under pastures (Guo & Gifford, 2002). However, Parfitt et al. (1997) found that an increase in carbon in the litter layer after transforming pastures to pine plantations could compensate for the decrease evident in the soil (Parfitt et al., 1997). In a study

analyzing afforestation in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, Vesterdal et al. (2006) found that trees planted on sandy, nutrient-poor soils resulted in relatively more carbon sequestration in the forest floor and soil than afforestation of clayey, nutrient-rich soils.

Biomass growth is also important for determining the amount of carbon sequestered after afforestation. In a study analyzing afforestation in Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, Rosenqvist (2007) found that two thirds of the increase in ecosystem carbon after afforestation was a result of carbon stored in biomass while only one third was a result of carbon stored in the soil.

Tree species

Many researchers have devoted their time to analysing the effect of tree species on carbon storage in forest soils. Differences in tree species have found to lead to differences in the amount of organic

(11)

carbon stored in forest soils under some circumstances (Finzi, Van Breemen & Canham, 1998; Vesterdal et al., 2008; Vesterdal,

Clarke, Sigurdsson & Gunderson, 2013; Trum, Titeux, Ranger & Delvaux, 2011). For example, a study investigating the influence of six tree species on soil carbon stocks in the Veluwe found

significant differences, with beech having the highest soil carbon stock (Schulp, Nabuurs, Verburg & de Waal, 2008). In a study reviewing the carbon stocks in the soils under different European tree species, De Vries et al. (2003) also found that the most soil carbon was stored under beech, while the least amount of soil carbon was stored under Scots Pine. The discrepancies found among species are partially a result of differences in the quantity and quality of the tree litter (Vesterdal et al., 2008; De Deyn, Cornelissen & Bardgett, 2008; Lal, 2005; Lutzow et al., 2005; Kögel-Knaber, 2005). However, other influences such as climate, temperature, soil chemical properties and soil biotic community also influence forest soil carbon stocks (Prescott, 2010; Lal, 2005). For instance, one must keep in mind that pine trees such as Scots Pine already grow on less fertile soils (Jandl et al., 2007).

Additionally, trees accumulate varying amounts of biomass, with more biomass resulting in more carbon storage. De Vries et al. (2003) found that among European tree species, beech

accumulated the most biomass, while Scots Pine accumulated the least. Finer et al. (2007) found that the fine root biomass of beech was approximately 1.5 times larger than the fine root biomass of Scots Pine or Norway Spruce (Finer et al., 2007).

Moreover, different tree species have found to accumulate different forest floor carbon stocks, with conifer species

accumulating a larger forest floor carbon stock compared to deciduous species (Vesterdal et al., 2008; Vesterdal, Clarke, Sigurdsson & Gunderson, 2013; Finzi, Van Breemen & Canham, 1998). However, species that can accumulate large forest floor carbon stocks are not necessarily preferable, because forest floor carbon stocks are not ‘stable’ seeing as the forest floor carbon is respired relatively quickly (Franklin, Högberg, Ekblad & Ågren, 2003). Besides this, larger forest floor carbon stocks might actually have a negative influence on the overall soil carbon balance.

Researchers found that the input of carbon from the forest floor triggered the release of carbon situated lower in the soil (Fontaine et al., 2007). This happens because nutrient-limited microbes are supplied with nutrients, which leads to mineralization (Fontaine et al., 2007; Fontaine, Bardoux, Abbadie & Mariotti, 2004).

(12)

Understory Species

Fewer studies have analyzed the influence of understory species on soil carbon stocks in forests. One research revealed that soil carbon stocks were reduced after understory species were removed, as a result of a decrease in the carbon input through litter and root biomass (Shan, Morris & Hendrick, 2001). Another study found that compared to plots without herbaceous understory vegetation, the plots with this type of vegetation stored higher amounts of carbon in the mineral topsoil. They hypothesized that this was due to the input of high quality understory litter (Bauhus, Vor, Bartsch & Cowling, 2004). Hilli, Stark and Derome (2010) found that discrepancies in the plant litter of dwarf shrubs, mosses and trees resulted in different forest floor and soil carbon stocks, with moss litter storing significantly more carbon.

In a study investigating differences in the forest floor and soil carbon stocks under different understory species in Scots Pine forests in the Veluwe, Caycedo (2017) found that the species Wavy Hairgrass and Common Hairmoss accumulated significantly more carbon in the first 5 cm of the mineral soil (mineral topsoil) than Bilberry and a control group that contained no understory species. Moreover, Wavy Hairgrass accumulated significantly more forest floor carbon. These results could imply that planting certain

understory species is beneficial to carbon sequestration in forests, but long-term empirical studies are necessary to confirm this.

Forest Management Techniques

In temperate forests, the addition of nitrogen can lead to increased soil organic carbon storage (Lal, 2005; Janssens et al., 2010;

Stockmann et al., 2013; Frey et al., 2014). This is the case as the added nitrogen halts decomposition, which leads to an increased sequestration of carbon (Jansen et al., 2010; Adams et al., 2005; De Marco et al., 2016). Additionally, adding nitrogen to forests that are nitrogen-limited can stimulate tree and understory growth,

resulting in an enhancement of biomass carbon as well as

increasing the amount of carbon that enters the forest soil through litter and biomass (Janssens et al., 2010; Bonan & Cleve, 1992). However, due to the fact that most forests in the Netherlands are not nitrogen-limited (Erisman et al., 2000), an addition of nitrogen most likely would not have a strong effect on forest carbon

(13)

Moreover, several researchers propose that the application of biochar to forest soils can enhance carbon sequestration (Lehmann, Gaunt & Rondon, 2006; Lehmann, 2007; Matovic, 2011). Ogawa et al. (2006) found that biochar application improved long-term forest soil carbon storage in forests in Australia, Indonesia and Japan. Additionally, forest waste, such as logging residues or dead wood, can be used for the production of biochar. When biomass is

converted into biochar and used as an application, approximately 50% of the initial carbon found in the waste biomass is sequestered (Lehmann, Gaunt & Rondon, 2006).

Harvesting is also proposed by researchers as a method to increase carbon sequestration in forests. However, in a study performed in forests in New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, Nunery & Keeton (2010) found that the sites where

harvesting had taken place sequestered less carbon than the sites where harvesting had taken place. Johnson et al. (2002) found that while harvest treatment did not affect the long-term sequestration of forest soil carbon, it did affect tree growth and tree biomass carbon.

The rotation period of forest tree stands might be important for determining how much carbon is stored (Pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR). In a study performed in Scots Pine and Norway Spruce forests in Finland, Liski et al. (2001) found that shorter rotation lengths decreased the carbon stored in trees while increasing the amount of carbon found in the soil. Moreover, the effect of rotation length on biomass carbon sequestration differed per species. A longer rotation length was advantageous for carbon storage in Scots Pine biomass, while a shorter rotation length was advantageous for Norway Spruce biomass carbon storage (Liski et al, 2001). Kaipanen et al. (2004) found that a longer rotation length was beneficial to carbon sequestration in the biomass of Norway Spruce and Scots Pine trees in forests in the UK, Finland, Germany and Spain. The elongation of rotation lengths in Scots Pine forests in the Netherlands could have a significant effect on carbon

sequestration, seeing as 33,2 % of Dutch forest stands consists of Scots Pines (Dirkse et al., 2006).

It becomes clear that all detected influences are site-specific and dependent on various factors. Thus, more empirical research is necessary to determine the influence of forest management

(14)

Forest Management for Climate Policy

Afforestation has already been considered as a means to reach international climate targets in the Netherlands. For instance, several Dutch forestry organizations have proposed to expand Dutch forests with 100,000 hectare with their ‘Actieplan Bos & Hout’, one of the reasons being to aid carbon sequestration

(Nabuurs et al., 2016). This plan has been met with both criticism and praise. The Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO) is critical of the plan, seeing as they think that it would lead to conflict with farmers that require space for their croplands and pastures (Ramaker, 2016). Moreover, due to the high density of people and extensive built area, the Netherlands is already among the Europeans countries with the lowest amount of forested area. The possibility to create new forest stands is limited (Probos, 2010; FAO, 2010). Additionally, a conversion of agricultural land to forest results in a large decrease in the value of the land (Probos, 2012). Considering the fact that older forests store more carbon, this would mean that land would keep its ‘low value’ for a long period of time. However, according to experts, using afforestation projects for climate policy might be inevitable in order to meet the targets that have been set forth by the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris

(15)

Agreement. This is due to the fact that creating negative emissions is necessary in order to reach the goals, and using terrestrial

ecosystems as sinks is one of the only ways to achieve this (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2016; Anderson & Peters, 2016; pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR).

A problem regarding afforestation projects carried out before 2021 is that they might not positively influence the Dutch carbon budget for the reckoning of Kyoto LULUCF accounting. This is due to the fact that under the different forest categories, a new

afforestation project – such as proposed in the Actieplan Bos & Hout - would not be registered as forest area capable of

sequestering CO2 ‘on time’ seeing as it would remain in the deforestation category (pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR).

However, there is still discussion among countries about how the different forest categories should be taken into account during the Kyoto LULUCF accounting reckoning in 2021, as well as when the Paris Agreement becomes the leading document for LULUCF accounting (Böttcher & Graichen, 2015).The discussion is mainly revolved around the category Forest Management. For

Deforestation, all forest cover lost is registered as emitted CO2. For Afforestation/Reforestation, gains in forest cover are registered as sequestered CO2. However, for Forest Management, the yearly CO2 sequestration is compared to a ‘reference level’. This reference level is based on historical data, and is the average of the projected emissions and removals from forest management (European

Commission, 2017). For future accounting, only if a country

sequesters more than the reference level is it able to register it as a sink (Macintosch, 2011). Thus, the manner in which projected emissions and removals are calculated is crucial for determining how much carbon is being sequestered in Dutch forests according to LULUCF accounting rules (pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR).

(16)

LULUCF accounting & forest reference level (European Commission, 2017)

Moreover, while statistics show that forest cover has increased on a yearly basis over the past years (CBS, 2014), the Netherlands is actually experiencing ‘net deforestation’ (pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR; Nabuurs, Kuikman & Kramer, 2005). In the

Netherlands, forest has frequently been converted to other forms of land use in the past years. For instance, forests were converted to meadows in line with the Natura2000 laws in order to preserve the natural habitat of native species (Probos, 2012). Dutch laws state that new forest must be created when forest is lost elsewhere. However, it takes a long time before the quick loss of carbon when forest is lost is compensated by the gain in carbon storage in newly created forestland elsewhere (Pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR; Nabuurs, Kuikman & Kramer, 2005).

Overall, forest management techniques do not take on a prominent role in Dutch climate policy (PBL, 2016; Ministerie van Infrastructuur & Milieu, 2017). This could be due to the fact that the areal of forested land in the Netherlands is small. Only 11 % of the Netherlands is covered by forest (World Bank, 2017). Thus, the relative effect on CO2 mitigation as a result of forest management techniques is not thought to be large (pers. Communication Eric Arets, WUR). Moreover, there is still a lack of research regarding the processes influencing CO2 sequestration in Northern European forests (Muys, et al., 2011). Seeing as Dutch climate policy is

partially based on scientific findings, the lack of site-specific empirical research regarding forest management for carbon

sequestration in the Netherlands might prevent forest management from being considered for climate action. Additionally, little

research has been devoted to studying the economic viability of forest management techniques in the Netherlands, while this information is crucial to form adequate policy (Valatin & Price, 2014).

A large disadvantage of using afforestation or forest

management as a means to sequester carbon, is the chance that the carbon is lost again in the long-run due to human interference, environmental changes (for instance through climate change) or

(17)

disruptions such as disease or forest fire (UNFCCC, 2017). While policy measures could possibly prevent unwanted human

interference to take place - at least for a certain amount of time - changes brought about by environmental pressures, for instance through climate change, are harder to control. The conversion of trees into wood products might partially prevent this from

occurring by ‘locking’ carbon (Valatin & Price, 2014; Nunery & Keaton, 2010; Skog & Nicholson, 1998). However, extensive life-cycle analyses are necessary to analyze the effectiveness of such techniques.

Conclusion

This research project aimed to answer the question: What is the viability of integrating forest management techniques aimed at enhancing long-term carbon sequestration in climate policy in the Netherlands?

The results indicated that several forest management

techniques are effective when seeking to sequester carbon. Converting agricultural land to forest can lead to an increase in carbon sequestration, especially for croplands. Planting certain tree species such as beech and understory species such as moss and grass can significantly enhance carbon sequestration in

forests. Maintaining forests for a long period of time is beneficial, seeing as older forests sequester more carbon. Besides this, the production of biochar from forest residues and subsequent application of biochar could be viable way to increase carbon sequestration in existing forests. Moreover, the elongation of rotation lengths in forests – such as Scots Pine forests - could be a cost-effective way to increase biomass carbon sequestration.

However, seeing as the carbon storage potential of a forest is site-specific, empirical research in Dutch forests is necessary to

concretely determine the influence of forest management techniques on carbon sequestration.

Afforestation has already been proposed as a possible means to achieve Dutch climate targets. However, political problems related to using afforestation for CO2 sequestration are the lack of space in the Netherlands, the competition for other types of land-use such as agriculture and the relatively low value of forestland. Nevertheless experts state that in the light of the negative

emissions that the Paris Agreement requires countries to achieve, afforestation might be a necessary option.

(18)

Notwithstanding, afforestation projects carried out before 2021 might not have a positive effect on the Dutch LULUCF carbon accounting budget. The effectiveness of using afforestation as a means to achieve climate targets set by the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement is highly dependent on the manner in which the reckoning of countries’ LULUCF CO2 sources and sinks will take place. In turn, this is a function of the definitions of the types of forest that are used within international LULUCF policy, and the way that the forest reference level is calculated.

The reason that forest management techniques do not yet play a central role in the Dutch climate debate might be due to the relatively small contribution that policy makers and researchers estimate that these techniques can make to achieve carbon

sequestration. Moreover, there is a lack of research regarding the application of such techniques in the Netherlands and their cost-effectiveness.

The potential reversibility of carbon sequestration through forest management is an important issue. Besides human

interference, environmental pressures such as climate change and disturbances such as diseases or fires could turn forests into a source of carbon. The conversion of trees into wood products might partially prevent this from happening. However, more research is necessary to determine the most adequate way in which carbon should be stored in wood products in the long run.

Seeing as research indicates that the Netherlands might not reach the targets set forth by the Paris Agreement with the policies it is now adhering to, all possible options need to be considered. More research should be devoted to analyzing the application and cost-effectiveness of forest management as a means to achieve CO2 mitigation in the Netherlands, in order to adequately determine the viability of using forest management for climate action. Moreover, the Netherlands should make an effort to try to influence the international LULUCF debate, in order to ensure that any future decisions that are made regarding LULUCF accounting rules will be beneficial to them. Lastly, the net deforestation in the

Netherlands should be halted; in order to mitigate large losses of CO2 as forest cover is removed.

(19)

Bibliography

Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182-183.

Arets, E. J. M. M., van der Kolk, J. W. H., Hengeveld, G. M., Lesschen, J. P., Kramer, H., Kuikman, P. J., & Schelhaas, M. (2015). Greenhouse gas reporting for the LULUCF sector in the

Netherlands (No. 52). Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature &

(20)

Bauhus, J., Vor, T., Bartsch, N., & Cowling, A. (2004). The effects of gaps and liming on forest floor decomposition and soil C and N dynamics in a Fagus sylvatica forest. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research, 34(3), 509-518.

Böttcher, H., & Graichen, J. (2015). Impacts on the EU 2030 climate target of including LULUCF in the climate and energy policy

framework. Berlin: Oko-Institut eV.

Caycedo., S. T. (2017). The influence of understory vegetation on carbon storage in pine forests around the Kootwijkerzand.

Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam

CBS. (2014). Ontwikkeling van het Nederlandse bos, 2001–2013 (Development of woodland in the Netherlands; indicator 0069, versie 08, 15 september 2014).

Coenen, P., van der Maas, C., Zijlema, P., Arets, E., Baas., K., van den Berge, A., van Huis, E., Geilenkirchen, G., Hoogsteen, M., Spijker, J., te Molder, R., Droge, R., Montfoort, J., Peek, C., Vonk, J., Oude Voshaar, S, Dellaert, S. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 1990-2015. : National Inventory Report 2017. The Hague: RIVM.

Cramer, J. M. (2007). Nieuwe energie voor het klimaat– Werkprogramma Schoon en Zuinig.

Cunningham, S. C., Mac Nally, R., Baker, P. J., Cavagnaro, T. R., Beringer, J., Thomson, J. R., & Thompson, R. M. (2015). Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural

regions. Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and

systematics, 17(4), 301-317.

De Deyn, G. B., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Bardgett, R. D. (2008). Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecology Letters, 11:516–531.

Dros, A. (2017). Forest wonderlands: photos of woods in the Netherlands. Retrieved 02-07-2017 from:

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/15/forest-wonderlands-photos-woods-netherlands/

(21)

European Commission. (2017). Land use and forestry proposal for 2021-2030. Retrieved 02-07-2017 from:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests/lulucf_en European Commission. (2017). 2030 climate and energy framework. Retrieved 05-07-2017 from:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en

Erisman, J. W., de Vries, W., Kros, H., Oenema, O., van der Eerden, L. J., & van Zeijts, H. (2000). Analyse van de stikstofproblematiek

in Nederland; een eerste verkenning. ECN.

Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125.

FAO. (2010). Global Forest Resources assessment. Rome: FAO

Finér, L., Helmisaari, H. S., Lõhmus, K., Majdi, H., Brunner, I., Børja, I., ... & Kraigher, H. (2007). Variation in fine root biomass of three European tree species: Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Plant Biosystems, 141(3), 394-405.

Finzi, A. C., Van Breemen, N., & Canham, C. D. (1998). Canopy tree–soil interactions within temperate forests: species effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Ecological applications, 8(2), 440-446.

Fontaine, S., Bardoux, G., Abbadie, L., & Mariotti, A. (2004). Carbon input to soil may decrease soil carbon content. Ecology

letters, 7(4), 314-320.

Fontaine, S., Barot, S., Barré, P., Bdioui, N., Mary, B., & Rumpel, C. (2007). Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature, 450(7167), 277-280.

Grassi, G., House, J., Dentener, F., Federici, S., den Elzen, M., & Penman, J. (2017). The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate

Change, 7(3), 220-226.

Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002). Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global change biology, 8(4), 345-360.

(22)

Hilli, S., Stark, S., & Derome, J. (2010). Litter decomposition rates in relation to litter stocks in boreal coniferous forests along

climatic and soil fertility gradients. Applied Soil Ecology, 46(2), 200-208.

Janssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Smith, P., Nabuurs,

G.-J., Folberth, G. et al . 2003. Europe's terrestrial biosphere absorbs 7 to 12% of European anthropogenic CO2

emissions. Science, 300, 1538–1542.

Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L., Bauwens, B., Baritz, R., Hagedorn, F & Byrne, K. A. (2007). How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon

sequestration?. Geoderma, 137(3), 253-268.

Johnson, D. W., Knoepp, J. D., Swank, W. T., Shan, J., Morris, L. A., Van Lear, D. H., & Kapeluck, P. R. (2002). Effects of forest

management on soil carbon: results of some long-term resampling studies. Environmental Pollution, 116, S201-S208.

Kaipainen, T., Liski, J., Pussinen, A., & Karjalainen, T. (2004). Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(3), 205-219.

Kögel-Knabner, I. (2002). The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic

matter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34(2), 139-162.

Lal,R. (2005). Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecology Management, 220:242–258.

Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., & Rondon, M. (2006). Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems–a review. Mitigation and adaptation

strategies for global change, 11(2), 395-419.

Lehmann, J. (2007). A handful of carbon. Nature, 447(7141), 143-144.

Liski, J., Pussinen, A., Pingoud, K., Mäkipää, R., & Karjalainen, T. (2001). Which rotation length is favourable to carbon

sequestration?. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31(11), 2004-2013.

(23)

Lützow, M. V., Kögel‐Knabner, I., Ekschmitt, K., Matzner, E.,

Guggenberger, G., Marschner, B., & Flessa, H. (2006). Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their

relevance under different soil conditions–a review. European

Journal of Soil Science, 57(4), 426-445.

Macintosh, A. (2011). Are forest management reference levels incompatible with robust climate outcomes? A case study on Australia. Carbon Management, 2(6), 691-707.

Matovic, D. (2011). Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: Global and Canadian perspective. Energy, 36(4).

Ministerie van Infrastructuur & Milieu. (2017). Klimaatagenda: voorkomen, aanpassen en ondernemen. Retrieved 05-07-2017 from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/10/04/klimaatage nda-voorkomen-aanpassen-en-ondernemen.

Muys, B., Achten, W., Verbist, B., Aerts, R., Kint, V., Hermy, M., ... & De Tavernier, J. (2011). Behoud en beheer van bossen voor

duurzame ontwikkeling: waar wetenschap en beleid elkaar ontmoeten.

Nabuurs, G. J., Schelhaas, M., Oldenburger, J., de Jong, A.,

Schrijver, R. A. M., Woltjer, G. B., & Silvis, H. J. (2016). Nederlands

bosbeheer en bos-en houtsector in de bio-economie (No. 2747).

Wageningen Environmental Research.

Nabuurs, G. J., Kuikman, P. J., & Kramer, H. (2005). Nederlandse ontbossing bedraagt 1470 ha per jaar. Vakblad Natuur Bos

Landschap, 2(7), 27-27.

Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., & Dokken, D. J. (2000). Land use, land use change, and forestry. Cambridge University Press.

Noble, I., & Scholes, R. J. (2001). Sinks and the Kyoto protocol. Climate policy, 1(1), 5-25.

Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., & Dokken, D. J. (2000). Land use, land use change, and forestry. Cambridge University Press.

(24)

Nunery, J. S., & Keeton, W. S. (2010). Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. Forest Ecology and

Management, 259(8), 1363-1375.

Ogawa, M., Okimori, Y., & Takahashi, F. (2006). Carbon

sequestration by carbonization of biomass and forestation: three case studies. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global

change, 11(2), 421-436.

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., & Ciais, P. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988-993.

Parfitt, R. L., Percival, H. J., Dahlgren, R. A., & Hill, L. F. (1997). Soil and solution chemistry under pasture and radiata pine in New Zealand. Plant and soil, 191(2), 279-290.

Patenaude, G., Milne, R., & Dawson, T. P. (2005). Synthesis of remote sensing approaches for forest carbon estimation: reporting to the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(2), 161-178.

Paul, K. I., Polglase, P. J., Nyakuengama, J. G., & Khanna, P. K. (2002). Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest

ecology and management, 168(1), 241-257.

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. (2016). Wat betekent het Parijsakkoord voor het Nederlandse lange-termijn klimaatbeleid? Den Haag: PBL

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. (2016). Opties voor energie-en klimaatbeleid. Den Haag: PBL

Post, W. M., & Kwon, K. C. (2000). Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential. Global change

biology, 6(3), 317-327.

Probos. (2012). Bosuitbreiding versus ontbossing in Nederland. Wageningen: Probos

(25)

Rijksoverheid. (2017). Klimaatbeleid. Retrieved 06-0702017 from:

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/klimaatverandering/klim aatbeleid

Rosenqvist, L. (2007). Afforestation of former arable land in

North-Western Europe (Vol. 2007, No. 2).

Ramaker, R. (2016). Action plan for afforestation. Retrieved 03-07-2017 from:

https://resource.wur.nl/en/show/Action-plan-for-afforestation.htm

Schipper, E. L. F. (2006). Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Review of European, Comparative &

International Environmental Law, 15(1), 82-92.

Schlesinger, W. H. (1986). Changes in soil carbon storage and associated properties with disturbance and recovery. In The

Changing Carbon Cycle (pp. 194-220). Springer New York.

Schoene, D., & Netto, M. (2005). The Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for forests and forestry?. UNASYLVA-FAO-, 56(3), 3.

Schulp, C. J., Nabuurs, G. J., Verburg, P. H., & de Waal, R. W. (2008). Effect of tree species on carbon stocks in forest floor and mineral soil and implications for soil carbon inventories. Forest

ecology and management, 256(3), 482-490.

Shan, J., Morris, L. A., & Hendrick, R. L. (2001). The effects of management on soil and plant carbon sequestration in slash pine plantations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38(5), 932-941.

Skog, K. E., & Nicholson, G. A. (1998). Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and paper products in carbon sequestration. Forest Products Journal, 48(7/8), 75.

Trum, F., Titeux, H., Ranger, J., & Delvaux, B. (2011). Influence of tree species on carbon and nitrogen transformation patterns in forest floor profiles. Annals of forest science, 68(4), 837-847.

(26)

Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, M., Ferrara, A. F., House, J., Federici, S., Rossi, S., ... & Prosperi, P. (2015). The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990– 2012. Global change biology, 21(7), 2655-2660.

UNFCCC. (2017). Land use, land use change and forestry. Retrieved 02-07-2017 from:

http://unfccc.int/land_use_and_climate_change/lulucf/items/3060.p hp

Valatin, G., & Price, C. (2014). How cost-effective is forestry for climate change mitigation?. In Challenges and opportunities for the

world's forests in the 21st Century (pp. 297-339). Springer

Netherlands.

Vesterdal, L., Rosenqvist, L., Van der Salm, C., Hansen, K., Groenenberg, B. J., & Johansson, M. B. (2007). Carbon sequestration in soil and biomass following afforestation: experiences from oak and Norway spruce chronosequences in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. In Environmental Effects

of Afforestation in North-Western Europe (pp. 19-51). Springer

Netherlands.

Vesterdal, L., Schmidt, I. K., Callesen, I., Nilsson, L. O., & Gundersen, P. (2008). Carbon and nitrogen in forest floor and mineral soil under six common European tree species. Forest

Ecology and Management, 255(1), 35-48.

Vesterdal, L., Clarke, N., Sigurdsson, B. D., & Gundersen, P. (2013). Do tree species influence soil carbon stocks in temperate and boreal forests?. Forest Ecology and Management, 309, 4-18.

de Vries, W., Reinds, G. J., Posch, M., Sanz, M. J., Krause, G. H. M., Calatayud, V., ... & Dobbertin, M. (2003). Intensive monitoring of

forest ecosystems in Europe; technical report 2003. FIMCI.

van Vuuren, D. P., Boot, P., Ros, J., Hof, A., & den Elzen, M. (2016). Wat betekent het Parijsakkoord voor het Nederlandse

langetermijn-klimaatbeleid. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. World Bank. (2017). Forest area (% of land area). Retrieved

Forest Management & Climate Policy in the Netherlands