FORESTRY TASMANIA REVIEW OF THE
TASMANIAN FOREST CARBON STUDY
Forestry Tasmania notes the following strengths and weaknesses in the Tasmanian Forest
Carbon Study (TFCS: May et al. 2012) which are followed by our key observations.
Strengths of the Tasmanian Forest Carbon Study
Emphasis is placed on how forest management decisions affect the flux of greenhouse
gases to and from the atmosphere. Limitations associated with the approach and scope
of the study are identified.
Landscape carbon stock estimates are based on the full range of forest types, productivity
types and age classes.
A State-wide view across all tenures is presented.
Wildfire effects on forest age class structure and carbon stocks are included.
The reduction in carbon stocks with succession of wet eucalypt forest to rainforest in the
absence of disturbance is captured. New data supports this position.
The effect of climate change on forest growth and disturbance dynamics is discussed.
A good review of forest carbon in a Tasmanian context is provided.
The possible source, value and (low) probability of realising carbon credits are described.
While not explored, the opportunity costs associated with increasing reserves are
identified.
Weaknesses of the Tasmanian Forest Carbon Study
The role of wood products in greenhouse gas mitigation was beyond the scope of the
study.
Accounting for revenues from timber extraction was beyond the scope of the study.
International trade in wood products, including international leakage was beyond the
scope of the study.
Available forest carbon accounting tools are under-developed for application below the
national scale, reducing confidence in estimates and projections of forest carbon.
Key observations are outlined below.
1. Sustainable forest management is the internationally recognised strategy to reduce
greenhouse gas mitigation with forest management
The TFCS focussed on landscape carbon storage, and while it identified the potential role of
wood products in greenhouse gas mitigation, it also identified that these were beyond the
scope of the study. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; IPCC
2007), Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO; FAO 2008, 2010a,
2010b), International Energy Agency (IEA; IEA 2009), and most forest scientists recognise
that the sustainable management of forests including a mixed strategy of conservation and
timber production is optimal for carbon reduction. To quote the IPCC AR4 report:
1
“A sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while
producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained
mitigation benefit’’.
Wood is a renewable, low emission resource that can substitute for more greenhouse gas
intensive products such as metals, concrete and plastic in construction. Furthermore wood
products store carbon during their useful life and beyond, with recent research (Ximenes et al.
2008, 2012) indicating wood products store C longer than predicted by ABARES.
Furthermore discarded wood products as well as harvest (e.g. stem tops) and processing
residues (e.g. sawdust) can be used to generate renewable energy and displace fossil fuels as
discussed in the Wedge report (MMA 2009) and supported by green groups internationally
(e.g. World Wildlife Fund for Nature 2006). For these reasons the international and domestic
scientific community is increasingly supporting the position of the IPCC, FAO and IEA (e.g.
Lippke et al 2011, Ximenes et al. 2012). We encourage the Tasmanian government to reflect
this position in policy settings and directions.
2. Financial returns from the forest industry dwarf potential returns from carbon credits
In evaluating economic opportunities we ask that the government provide a full account that
compares and contrast the economic and financial opportunity from carbon credits and forest
management.
The TFCS identifies possible revenues available from carbon credits that have the potential to
be realised by reserving large areas of production forest. We note that TFCS, with the URS
report (URS 2012), identifies significant issues in realising these carbon credits and agree that
the Tasmanian government is unlikely to realise a return on this approach. Moreover, the
TFCS indicates >10% of carbon credit revenues will go to costs associated with participation
in the carbon market. However, as the TFCS indicates, the value of the industry that must be
sacrificed to realise the assumed carbon credits has not been estimated in the report.
The benefit of sustainable forest management to Tasmania from the forest industry will be
much larger than the value of the proposed carbon credits. For example, the value of carbon
credits identified by the TFCS ranges from $80 million to $240 million. If a 3% discounting
rate is applied over a 50 year time horizon this equates to a maximum annual value from
carbon credits of $10.5 million. For comparison, the estimated contribution of wood
production from native forests to State GVP in 2010-2011 was $275 million. The net present
value of this amount, at a discount rate of 3% over 50 years is $7.5 billion. Returns from
forest management dwarf proposed returns from carbon credits.
3. Seek proper estimates of landscape carbon stocks and cycles.
Including the full range of forest types, productivity classes, and age classes, as well as the
effect of wildfire and succession on forest carbon stocks is an important aspect of the TFCS
report. Estimated forest carbon stocks are comparable to earlier estimates based on Forestry
Tasmania’s inventory data. Estimates of forest carbon storage cannot be based on carbon
dense mature forests alone, and cannot ignore the effect of wildfire, as some earlier reports
have done.
Carbon stocks in sustainably managed forests can be expected to be maintained or even
increase over time. The TFCS indicates that during business as usual (extracting 300 000 m3
2
of high quality saw logs per year, without additional reservations, from State forest), forest
carbon stocks can be expected to increase over time. This confirms the findings from the
2007 MBAC report. We also note the TFCS indicates carbon losses from regeneration burns
are small compared to carbon sequestered in the remainder of the estate, that intensifying
forestry, as proposed by the Intergovernmental Agreement will potentially increase carbon
emissions, that regrowth absorbs carbon from the atmosphere quickly and eventually forests
regrown following harvest replenish forest carbon stocks.
4. Seek proper accounting of wildfire on carbon stocks
The TFCS has rightfully considered and begun modelling the effect of wildfire on forest
carbon storage, demonstrating that wildfire activity strongly affects the ability of forests to
store carbon. The TFCS accurately identifies that wet eucalypt forests are fire driven, being
dependent on wildfire for regeneration. Furthermore, the TFCS identifies an increase in
wildfire danger as the climate warms and dries and indicates that large fire events are not fully
accounted for in their projections.
South-eastern Australian forests are among the most fire driven ecosystems in the world.
According to the TFCS the 1898 Tasmanian mega fire burned roughly 2 million ha. Since
2003, 3.5 million ha of Victorian forests have burned, releasing over 150 million tonnes of
carbon to the atmosphere. Forest stored carbon is thus at risk of being returned to the
atmosphere, potentially requiring any carbon credits, and perhaps more, to be repaid. With
many decades since the last Tasmanian mega fire in 1934, forest carbon stocks are arguably
high at the moment and thus at risk of significant depletion with the next mega fire. In light
of mega fires the TFCS acknowledges its modelled area burnt may not be realistic. Estimated
carbon carrying capacity may therefore be optimistic and requires more research.
5. Account for international trade in wood products on greenhouse gas emissions
In seeking the best outcome for the atmosphere, both domestic and international leakage
must be accounted for. While the TFCS was constrained to examining domestic leakage only,
it rightfully identified the probability of international leakage, and that replacement wood is
likely to be sourced from forests managed to a lesser standard, and thus associated with larger
emissions than wood sourced from Tasmania’s forests.
Conclusion
We must avoid the worst possible outcome, where we store carbon in forests added to the
reserve network, only to have forest stored carbon released to the atmosphere by wildfire
without the greenhouse gas mitigation and economic benefit of extracted wood products. Should
this occur, no carbon will be stored in wood products and no emissions will be prevented from
the use of wood in place of more greenhouse gas intensive materials or as biomass energy.
Further emission increases can be expected as replacement wood is sourced from forests
managed to lower standards than Tasmania’s. Forestry Tasmania stands ready to help the
government navigate these issues and achieve the best outcome for the environment and society.
3
References:
FAO 2008. Forests and energy. FAO forestry paper 154. Rome. Accessible online at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/i0139e/i0139e00.htm
FAO 2010a. Impact of the global forest industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases. FAO
Forestry Paper 159. Rome. 71 pp. Accessible online at;
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1580e/i1580e00.htm.
FAO 2010b. What woodfuels can do to mitigate climate change. FAO Forestry Paper 162.
Rome. 84 pp. Accessible online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1756e/i1756e00.htm
Accessed November 2010.
IEA 2009. Bioenergy – a sustainable and reliable energy source: a review of status and prospects.
Paris, International Energy Agency
IPCC 2007. Nabuurs, G.J., Masera, O., Andrasko, K., Benitez-Ponce, P., Boer, R., Dutschke, M.,
Elsiddig, E., Ford-Robertson, J., Frumhoff, P., Karjalainen, T., Krankina, O., Kurz, W.A.,
Matsumoto, M., Oyhantcabal, W., Ravindranath, N.H., Sanz Sanchez, M.J., Zhang, X. 2007.
Forestry. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B.,
Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., and Meyer, L.A. (Eds)], Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Lippke B., Oneil, E., Harrison, R., Skog, K., Gustavsson, L., and Sathre, R. 2011. Life cycle
impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and
unknowns. Carbon Management 2: 303-333. Accessible online at: http://www.futurescience.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.11.24
May, B., Bulinski. J., Goodwin, A., Macleod S. 2012. Tasmanian forest carbon study. CO2
Australia. 365pp
MBAC 2007. Forestry Tasmania’s carbon sequestration position. MBAC Consulting Group Pty
Ltd. Melbourne. 35pp
MMA 2009. Report to Tasmanian Climate Change Office, Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Tasmanian Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Project – Understanding the potential for
reducing Tasmania’s greenhouse gas emissions. 30 November 2009. McLennan Magasanik
Associates. 108pp
URS 2012. Strategic Review of Forestry Tasmania. Stage 2 report (Redacted). URS Southbank
Victoria. August 2012. 93pp
Ximenes, F. A., George, B.H., Cowie, A., Williams, J., Kelly, G. Greenhouse Gas Balance of
Native Forests in New South Wales, Australia. Forests 2012: 653-683.
Ximenes, F. A., Gardner, W.D. and Cowie, A. 2008a. The decomposition of wood products in
landfills in Sydney, Australia. Waste Management 28: 2344-2355.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature. 2006. WWF and the EU Biofuels Communication. Belgium.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Agriculture European Policy Office.
4