Finland’s climate policy relies largely on the carbon sinks of forests, which have collapsed. According to the researchers, the sinks can be saved, but strengthening them requires significant changes in land use.
Deforestation curbing, avoiding the clearing of peat fields, wetland cultivation of peat fields, change in cultivation practices and support policy, continuous cultivation in Finnish forests instead of clear-cutting, fertilization of forests, change in the production structure of the forest industry, establishment of new protected areas. . .
Reducing climate emissions from land use and strengthening the carbon sinks of forests is possible. There are several ways, such as the Natural Resources Center (Luke) already two years ago in the emission reductions of land use in his report the actions listed describe.
According to Luke, the most significant, fastest and relatively small area-requiring emission reductions would be achieved by changing the farming practices of peat fields and curbing deforestation, i.e. the clearing of forests for fields and built-up land.
Curbing deforestation and establishing protected areas help preserve carbon sinks that curb climate change. In addition, many climate measures promote the preservation of biodiversity and reduce the harmful environmental effects of agriculture and forestry, such as water pollution.
Finland climate policy, on the other hand, relies on the carbon sinks of forests.
Now the pillars are shaking because the forests do not bind carbon dioxide from the air as much as before. Forests are still a carbon sink, but smaller than before, and the land use sector has changed from a carbon sink to a source of emissions.
The reasons include, among other things, record-breaking felling and the slowing down of forest growth.
“It is clear that carbon sinks need to be strengthened if Finland’s climate goals are to be met. The Climate Act also obliges to review the adequacy of the actions taken and, if necessary, to correct the direction. Now this is what needs to be done,” says the research professor Raisa Mäkipää Read on.
Finland wants to be carbon neutral in 2035. Emissions must be reduced quickly in all sectors, but the goal cannot be achieved without carbon sinks in the land use sector and rapid emission reductions.
In the land use sector, it is most effective to target the largest emission sources, in which case the targets are clear, according to Mäkipää: peat fields and nutrient-rich drained swamp forests.
Peat fields are a big source of emissions in Finland, roughly in the same category as passenger car traffic. They produce up to 60 percent of agricultural emissions, even though peat fields are only ten percent of the entire arable area.
“Emissions from peatland fields are high, and their surface area has even increased. A significant part is still completely left out of cultivation, i.e. they are not harvested at all. Still, they cause emissions,” says Mäkipää.
Peat contains a lot of carbon and nitrogen, which produce greenhouse gases when draining dries the surface layer of the bog.
According to Luke, the cultivation practices of peat fields should be changed in such a way that the carbon stock of the peat is preserved. Means are, for example, raising the water level and wetland cultivation.
In Mäkipää’s opinion, the clearing of new peat fields should be stopped completely. At the same time, deforestation is also curbed.
Drained Peat forests, especially nutrient-rich spruce forests, are also a source of emissions. According to the researchers, they should be transferred to continuous cover forestry.
“Especially in peatland forests with the most nutrients, it is necessary to try to avoid clear cutting and draining by all means,” says Mäkipää.
“There is little research information, but the results so far are worrying. Emissions from a clear-cut swamp forest are up to ten times higher than a tree-covered peatland forest,” says Mäkipää.
Forest nature protecting biodiversity also helps carbon sinks. Climate measures, on the other hand, affect diversity as well as the water load of agriculture and forestry.
According to Luke’s research, the preservation of diversity would be supported especially by increasing protected areas and restoring forests and swamps
Increasing the number of saving trees would significantly increase the carbon stock of rotting wood in commercial forests.
Logging the impact on carbon sinks has generally been accentuated in recent years.
“Cutting has been at a heavy level, and in many areas the best forests suitable for logging have already been cut down. Then we moved to more challenging areas in terms of forestry and harvesting conditions, i.e. from mineral lands to peat lands,” Mäkipää thinks.
The impact of felling on carbon sinks comes directly from the increase in wood use and the annual variation, while the slowdown in forest growth is a long-term trend.
Recently, demand has been sufficient not only in industry but also in energy production. The use of wood has increased in thermal power plants, and even more than half of the wood used in Finland ends up as energy, mainly by utilizing side streams generated in industrial processes.
However, according to Mäkipää, burning wood cannot be the final mainstream solution in energy production, but efforts should be focused on, for example, geothermal energy, wind and solar energy, and biogas.
Ash from burning wood should be used as fertilizer in bog forests. Mäkipää considers ash fertilization a good opportunity to promote the growth of forests in the long term. However, achieving a significant carbon sink increase requires large areas.
For wood products could store coal for the long term, but in Finland the development is still in its infancy. Instead of long-lived wood products, the forest industry primarily produces pulp, which is in demand on the world market.
According to Luke, increasing the carbon stock of wood products requires a change in the production structure of the forest industry. The change and diversification of the production structure could also increase the degree of processing. At the same time, the importance of the forest industry to the national economy would increase in other ways than by increasing the amount of felling.
“The change has been painfully slow. However, the situation cannot continue in such a way that only volume is increased at the expense of quality and the added value is allowed to decrease. This is neither sustainable nor acceptable,” says Mäkipää.
“The strength of the forest industry should be in long-lived products with a high degree of processing, but there has been little development in that direction and on a small scale.”
You support currently do not promote change in agriculture and forestry. They do not encourage the introduction of all significant climate measures that reduce emissions.
The EU’s area-based agricultural subsidies encourage keeping the peat field cultivated or even just looking cultivated, because the subsidies are in no way tied to production.
“There will be support, even if the farmer does not produce anything in the field,” states Mäkipää.
In Mäkipää’s opinion, subsidies should be turned into incentives so that the removal of low-yielding peatland fields from cultivation would receive a climate bonus:
“Farmers should be paid for emission reductions, but now the support policy maintains a practice that increases emissions.”
“The situation is unfair towards active farmers and does not encourage pioneering. This frustrates many farmers.”
Subsidies paid to private forest owners mainly promote wood production based on rotational forestry and open felling, and only 1–2 percent goes to the management of forest nature. According to researchers, the support system must be renewed if Finland wants to be carbon neutral in 2035.
Read more: Subsidies do not encourage forest owners to take climate action, Luke suggests big changes
Fact
Forests bind carbon from the air
-
Forests are important in curbing climate change, as trees and soil bind carbon dioxide from the air.
-
In a forest acting as a carbon sink, tree growth binds more carbon than is released back into the air.
-
The carbon storage, on the other hand, stores carbon in the forest, when carbon is stored in trees and soil.
-
If the carbon stock increases, the forest acts as a carbon sink.
Carbon sinks a lively discussion has arisen because the forest sink has decreased significantly and last year the land use sector changed from a carbon sink to a source of emissions for the first time.
This became clear last May, when Statistics Finland announced its quick forecast of Finland’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021.
The information was confirmed when both Statistics Finland’s new emission inventory and Luke’s report on the growth of forests and the causes of the weakening of carbon sinks were published before Christmas. Among them are record-breaking deforestation and the slowing down of forest growth.
In terms of Finland’s climate goal, the situation is serious. However, it is not new, as the carbon sinks have been weakened for a long time.
Political consensus on the necessary means is still being sought.
#Environment #collapse #coal #sinks #revealed