David Ellison

On the forest cover–water yield debate: from demand‐ to supply‐side thinking

Several major articles from the past decade and beyond conclude the impact of reforestation or afforestation on water yield is negative: additional forest cover will reduce and removing forests will raise downstream water availability. A second group of authors argue the opposite: planting additional forests should raise downstream water availability and intensify the hydrologic cycle. Obtaining supporting evidence for this second group of authors has been more difficult due to the larger scales at which the positive effects of forests on the water cycle may be seen. We argue that forest cover is inextricably linked to precipitation. Forest-driven evapotranspiration removed from a particular catchment contributes to the availability of atmospheric moisture vapor and its cross-continental transport, raising the likelihood of precipitation events and increasing water yield, in particular in continental interiors more distant from oceans. Seasonal relationships heighten the importance of this phenomenon. We review the arguments from different scales and perspectives. This clarifies the generally beneficial relationship between forest cover and the intensity of the hydrologic cycle. While evidence supports both sides of the argument – trees can reduce runoff at the small catchment scale – at larger scales, trees are more clearly linked to increased precipitation and water availability. Progressive deforestation, land conversion from forest to agriculture and urbanization have potentially negative consequences for global precipitation, prompting us to think of forest ecosystems as global public goods. Policy-making attempts to measure product water footprints, estimate the value of ecosystem services, promote afforestation, develop drought mitigation strategies and otherwise manage land use must consider the linkage of forests to the supply of precipitation.

Is the Water Footprint an Appropriate Tool for Forestry and Forest Products: The Fennoscandian Case

The water footprint by the Water Footprint Network (WF) is an ambitious tool for measuring human appropriation and promoting sustainable use of fresh water. Using recent case studies and examples from water-abundant Fennoscandia, we consider whether it is an appropriate tool for evaluating the water use of forestry and forest-based products. We show that aggregating catchment level water consumption over a product life cycle does not consider fresh water as a renewable resource and is inconsistent with the principles of the hydrologic cycle. Currently, the WF assumes that all evapotranspiration (ET) from forests is a human appropriation of water although ET from managed forests in Fennoscandia is indistinguishable from that of unmanaged forests. We suggest that ET should not be included in the water footprint of rain-fed forestry and forest-based products. Tools for sustainable water management should always contextualize water use and water impacts with local water availability and environmental sensitivity.

The incentive gap: LULUCF and the Kyoto mechanism before and after Durban

To‐date, forest resource‐based carbon accounting in land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol (KP), European Union (EU) and national level emission reduction schemes considers only a fraction of its potential and fails to adequately mobilize the LULUCF sector for the successful stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Recent modifications at the 2011 COP17 meetings in Durban have partially addressed this basic problem, but leave room for improvement. The presence of an Incentive Gap (IG) continues to justify reform of the LULUCF carbon accounting framework. Frequently neglected in the climate change mitigation and adaptation literature, carbon accounting practices ultimately define the nuts and bolts of what counts and which resources (forest, forest‐based or other) are favored and utilized. For Annex I countries in the Kyoto Mechanism, the Incentive Gap under forest management (FM) is significantly large: some 75% or more of potential forestry‐based carbon sequestration is not effectively incentivized or mobilized for climate change mitigation and adaptation (Ellison et al. 2011a). In this paper, we expand our analysis of the Incentive Gap to incorporate the changes agreed in Durban and encompass both a wider set of countries and a larger set of omitted carbon pools. For Annex I countries, based on the first 2 years of experience in the first Commitment Period (CP1) we estimate the IG in FM at approximately 88%. Though significantly reduced in CP2, the IG remains a problem. Thus our measure of missed opportunities under the Kyoto and UNFCCC framework – despite the changes in Durban – remains important. With the exception perhaps of increased energy efficiency, few sinks or sources of reduced emissions can be mobilized as effectively and efficiently as forests. Thus, we wonder at the sheer magnitude of this underutilized resource.

Planned Adaptation Measures in Industrialised Countries: A Comparison of Select Countries Within and Outside the EU

This chapter provides a context for the discussion on the emergence of adaptation measures in the four case studies presented in this volume through a brief discussion of the ways in which planned adaptations are being developed in eight European countries. Adaptation actions at different levels in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain are described in order to provide an illustration of adaptation measures in a range of countries representing differing structural contexts, modes of decentralisation and histories of engagement in environmental policy. An additional section on planned adaptation as it has manifested in Canada and Australia is also presented to provide further ground for comparison with countries outside the European context. Results show a tenuous link between the extent to which countries have engaged in adaptation and their environmental policy implementation record, though some interesting links between environmental policy institutions and adaptation can be made. The extent to which unitary and federal nations have decentralised responsibility to sub-national tiers is shown to have an impact on the way in which regions and local authorities have engaged in adaptation. The role of both NGOs and the European Union is shown to be of significance to regional and local governments, as well as those countries who have not yet extensively engaged in adaptation at the national scale.

Addressing Adaptation in the EU Policy Framework

Though the EU’s climate change mitigation strategy has taken precedence over adaptation, there are signs this is beginning to change. With the publication of both a Green (2007) and a White Paper (2009) on an EU Adaptation strategy, the European Commission has taken the important step of initiating broad discussion and encouraging the mainstreaming or integration of adaptation strategies into the existing EU and Member state policy framework. Still, without extensive revision – in particular in the direction of ecosystem preservation, improvement and creation – and the parallel introduction of a Climate Change Commission mandated to pursue mitigation AND adaptation strategies in the Community interest, policy outcomes are likely to remain fragmented and suboptimal. Institutional divisions at the EU and national levels reinforce sectorally-driven climate strategies that only partially address the goals of either mitigation or adaptation. Among other policy suggestions, this chapter makes two broad recommendations. First, the EU and the Member states should seriously re-evaluate the approach to such policies as the water framework directive, Natura 2000 sites and biodiversity, afforestation, ecosystem services and ecosystem preservation. Second, significant institutional reforms could heighten EU commitment to the climate change agenda, reinforce its already significant international bargaining authority and broaden the focus and impact of the EU’s growing mitigation and adaptation agenda. Rapidly changing climate dynamics leave little room to dally.

Assessing uncertainty: Sample size trade-offs in the development and application of carbon stock models

Many parties to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) base their reporting of change in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector carbon pools on national forest inventories. A strong feature of sample-based inventories is that very detailed measurements can be made at the level of plots. Uncertainty regarding the results stems primarily from the fact that only a sample, and not the entire population, is measured. However, tree biomass on sample plots is not directly measured but rather estimated using regression models based on allometric features such as tree diameter and height. Estimators of model parameters are random variables that exhibit different values depending on which sample is used for estimating model parameters. Although sampling error is strongly influenced by the sample size when the model is applied, modeling error is strongly influenced by the sample size when the model is under development. Thus, there is a trade-off between which sample sizes to use when applying and developing models. This trade-off has not been studied before and is of specific interest for countries developing new national forest inventories and biomass models in the REDD context. This study considers a specific sample design and population. This fact should be considered when extrapolating results to other locations and populations.