- 1Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland
- 2Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Lund University, Sweden
- 3Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Birmingham, UK
- 4Birmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, UK
- 5Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research-Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
- 6Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands
- 7European Forest Institute (EFI), Joensuu, Finland
- 8Flemish Institute for Technology Research (VITO), Genk, Belgium
- 9PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands
- 10Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Netherlands
Forest-based climate mitigation measures are central to achieving the EU’s climate neutrality target by 2050 and meeting the LULUCF goal of 310 Mt CO₂ net removals by 2030. Forest management strategies should balance carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation with wood production, and build resilient flows of ecosystem services under changing climatic conditions. In this study, we apply an integrated modelling framework combining dynamic vegetation models (LPJ-GUESS), forest resource models (EFISCEN-Space), a global forest sector model (EFI-GTM) and a wood flow model (aiphoria) with dynamic life-cycle assessment modelling to assess the long-term carbon and biodiversity impacts of alternative forest management approaches across Europe. We include the downstream effects of changed wood provision to harvested wood products impacting the forest sector carbon balance and provide insights into potential substitution effects. By linking biophysical and economic modelling, we identify management strategies that enhance resilience and multifunctionality while supporting EU policy objectives for climate mitigation and biodiversity in the forest sector.
Our results suggest that management portfolios emphasizing extended rotation periods, reduced thinning intensities, and shifting to continuous cover harvesting—particularly when coupled with long-lived wood product deployment that replaces fossil-intensive other materials —can boost carbon sequestration and biodiversity outcomes across Europe. However, they also suggest reduced near-time harvesting levels—which appears to be the more important regulator of forest C sinks than the method of harvesting. Changing harvesting regimes and other management practices can help closing the gap towards the 310 Mt CO₂ target and contribute to the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality goal, but they also affect near-time harvest yields.
How to cite: Peltoniemi, M., Rautiainen, A., Repo, A., Pugh, T., Eckes-Shephard, A., Lindeskog, M., Suvanto, S., Raymond, J., Arneth, A., Filipek, S., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J., Moiseyev, A., Orfanidou, T., Müller, A., Cardellini, G., van't Veen, H., and Verkerk, H.: Exploring climate and biodiversity smart forest management options for European forests, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-13226, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-13226, 2026.