Better stewardship of land is needed to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement goal of holding warming to below 2 °C; however, confusion persists about the specific set of land stewardship options available and their mitigation potential. To address this, we identify and quantify "natural climate solutions" (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We find that the maximum potential of NCS-when constrained by food security, fiber security, and biodiversity conservation-is 23.8 petagrams of CO2 equivalent (PgCO2e) y-1 (95% CI 20.3-37.4). This is ≥30% higher than prior estimates, which did not include the full range of options and safeguards considered here. About half of this maximum (11.3 PgCO2e y-1) represents cost-effective climate mitigation, assuming the social cost of CO2 pollution is ≥100 USD MgCO2e-1 by 2030. Natural climate solutions can provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a >66% chance of holding warming to below 2 °C. One-third of this cost-effective NCS mitigation can be delivered at or below 10 USD MgCO2-1 Most NCS actions-if effectively implemented-also offer water filtration, flood buffering, soil health, biodiversity habitat, and enhanced climate resilience. Work remains to better constrain uncertainty of NCS mitigation estimates. Nevertheless, existing knowledge reported here provides a robust basis for immediate global action to improve ecosystem stewardship as a major solution to climate change.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/44/11645.full.pdf

Natural climate solutions

https://www.fabinet.up.ac.za/publication/pdfs/2231-payn_et_al_2015.pdf

Changes in planted forests and future global implications

In the United States, we have come to depend on plentiful and inexpensive energy to support our economy and lifestyles. In recent years, many questions have been raised regarding the sustainability of our current pattern of high consumption of nonrenewable energy and its environmental consequences. Further, because the United States imports about 55 percent of the nation's consumption of crude oil, there are additional concerns about the security of supply. Hence, efforts are being made to find alternatives to our current pathway, including greater energy efficiency and use of energy sources that could lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as nuclear and renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels. The United States has a long history with biofuels and the nation is on a course charted to achieve a substantial increase in biofuels. Renewable Fuel Standard evaluates the economic and environmental consequences of increasing biofuels production as a result of Renewable Fuels Standard, as amended by EISA (RFS2). The report describes biofuels produced in 2010 and those projected to be produced and consumed by 2022, reviews model projections and other estimates of the relative impact on the prices of land, and discusses the potential environmental harm and benefits of biofuels production and the barriers to achieving the RFS2 consumption mandate. Policy makers, investors, leaders in the transportation sector, and others with concerns for the environment, economy, and energy security can rely on the recommendations provided in this report.

Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy

At the outset the author states that: ‘This book is about how to grow Pinus radiata (radiata pine) forest plantations.’ It certainly covers a very wide range of topics – from the ecology of radiata pine within its natural range to the complexities of current research into tree breeding, silviculture and wood utilisation. The book also reviews the social, economic and environmental aspects of radiata pine plantations and includes a chapter on the use of radiata pine on farms.

Sustainable management of Pinus radiata plantations.

There is widespread concern that biomass energy policy that promotes forests as a supply source will cause net carbon emissions. Most of the analyses that have been done to date, however, are biological, ignoring the effects of market adaptations through substitution, net imports, and timber investments. This paper uses a dynamic model of forest and land use management to estimate the impact of United States energy policies that emphasize the utilization of forest biomass on global timber production and carbon stocks over the next 50 years. We show that when market factors are included in the analysis, expanded demand for biomass energy increases timber prices and harvests, but reduces net global carbon emissions because higher wood prices lead to new investments in forest stocks. Estimates are sensitive to assumptions about whether harvest residues and new forestland can be used for biomass energy and the demand for biomass. Restricting biomass energy to being sourced only from roundwood on existing forestland can transform the policy from a net sink to a net source of emissions. These results illustrate the importance of capturing market adjustments and a large geographic scope when measuring the carbon implications of biomass energy policies.

Economic approach to assess the forest carbon implications of biomass energy.

We estimated financial returns and wood production costs in 2008 for the primary timber plantation species. Excluding land costs, returns for exotic plantations in almost all of South America – Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, and Paraguay – were substantial. Eucalyptus species returns were generally greater than those for Pinus species in each country, with most having Internal Rates of Return (IRRs) of 20% per year or more, as did teak. Pinus species in South America were generally closer to 15%, except in Argentina, where they were 20%. IRRs were less, but still attractive for plantations of coniferous or deciduous species in China, South Africa, New Zealand, Indonesia, and the United States, ranging from 7% to 12%. Costs of wood production at the cost of capital of 8% per year were generally cheapest for countries with high rates of return and for pulpwood fiber production, which would favor vertically integrated firms in Latin America. But wood costs at stumpage market prices were much greater, making net wood costs for open market wood more similar among countries. In the Americas, Chile and Brazil had the most regulatory components of sustainable forest management, followed by Misiones, Argentina and Oregon in the U.S. New Zealand, the United States, and Chile had the best rankings regarding risk from political, commercial, war, or government actions and for the ease of doing business. Conversely, Venezuela, Indonesia, Colombia, and Argentina had high risk ratings, and Brazil, Indonesia, and Venezuela were ranked as more difficult countries for ease of business.

https://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pubs/ja_iitf_2010_Cubbage002.pdf

Global timber investments, wood costs, regulation, and risk

Prior research in 2005 and 2008 estimated planted forest investment returns for a set of countries and included some natural forest species in a few countries. This research has extended those analyses to a larger set of countries and focused on plantation species, for seven years. This research serves as a "benchmarking" exercise that helps identify comparative advantages among countries for timber investment returns, as well as other institutional, forestry, and policy factors that affect investments. Furthermore, it extends the analyses to examine the effects of land prices, environmental regulations, and increased productivity on timber investment returns, as well as comparing timber returns with traditional stock market returns. We estimated financial returns in 2005, 2008, and 2011 for a range of global timber plantation species and countries, using net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and Land Expectation Value (LEV)--or the Faustmann Formula--as criteria. Per the Faustmann approach, we excluded land costs initially, using a common real discount rate of 8% for all species in all countries to make equivalent comparisons. Returns for exotic plantations in almost all of South America--Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, and Paraguay--were substantial, as well as in China. In 2011, returns for Eucalyptus species were generally greater than those for Pinus species in each country, with most having IRRs of 14% per year or more. The IRRs for Pinus species in South America were slightly less, ranging from 8% to 12%, except for Brazil, where they were 19% to 23%. Internal rates of return ranged from 5% to 12% for plantations of coniferous or deciduous species in China, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, and the United States. Although lower than returns from South America, these would still be attractive to forest investors. Land costs and environmental regulations reduced plantation investment returns for all the countries studied, but the largest reductions were observed in South America. However, net returns these remained greater than for plantations in temperate forests. Trend analyses indicated that Brazil had the greatest increase in timber investment returns during the period examined; returns in other southern hemisphere countries remained fairly stable; and the US South had substantial decreases in returns. New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Chile, and Mexico had the best rankings regarding risk from political, commercial, or government actions and for the ease of doing business. Conversely, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina had high risk ratings, and Brazil and Venezuela were ranked as more difficult countries for ease of business. Recent government actions in several countries in South America, except Colombia, have discouraged foreign investments in agricultural land, which has adversely affected forestry as well. Timber-land investments fared well in comparison to USA equity or debt annual returns from 2000 to 2011. Past timber-land investors appear to making excellent returns now based on cheap land costs decades ago; new investments in most countries and plantation species will have smaller rates of return, but still compare favourably with traditional asset classes.

/pdf/global-timber-investments-and-trends-2005-2011-26jy7q1xh8.pdf

Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011

Se llevo a cabo la evaluacion biologica y financiera de un ensayo de fertilizacion en plantaciones de Eucalyptus urophylla establecidas en las sabanas orientales de Venezuela. El ensayo se establecio de acuerdo a un diseno experimental en bloques completos al azar, donde cada tratamiento consistio en la aplicacion de una combinacion de fertilizantes durante los primeros anos de la plantacion. Los tratamientos fueron: T1 (testigo sin fertilizacion), T2 (fertilizacion al momento de la implantacion -ano 0), T3 (fertilizacion solo en el ano 1), T4 (fertilizacion anos 0 y 1), T5 (fertilizacion anos 0 y 2) y T6 (fertilizacion anos 0,1 y 2). El rendimiento en peso, volumen e incremento del Valor Actual Neto Adicional (VANadic) de los tratamientos con al menos dos fertilizaciones fue significativamente superior (p = 0,01) al de los tratamientos con una sola o ninguna fertilizacion. Asimismo, los peores resultados se obtuvieron cuando no se fertilizo el primer ano. Desde el punto de vista financiero, los mejores tratamientos fueron aquellos con solo dos fertilizaciones. El incremento volumetrico de los tratamientos fertilizados una sola vez, o fertilizados tres veces, no justifican los costos adicionales ocasionados por la fertilizacion

Análisis biológico y financiero de un ensayo de fertilización en plantaciones de Eucalyptus urophylla establecidas en suelos arenosos del oriente de Venezuela

Omar Carrero

Papers

Global timber investments, wood costs, regulation, and risk

Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011

Análisis biológico y financiero de un ensayo de fertilización en plantaciones de Eucalyptus urophylla establecidas en suelos arenosos del oriente de Venezuela