Forest Products Industry

Restricting logging in the EU would cost a fortune, but the resulting benefit to the climate would be virtually non-existent, Professor Maarit Kallio tells Audiomedia. Source: Tero Karjalainen Forest Fi Implementing the EU’s carbon sink targets and biodiversity strategy for land use and forestry would cause a massive outflow of logging from the EU to other countries, Audiomedia writes. “In practice, this would mean a massive transfer of income from EU countries to elsewhere, but almost no climate benefit compared to the costs,” says Maarit Kallio, professor of forest economics and policy at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), to Audiomedia. According to Kallio, the EU’s LULUCF (Regulation on Land Use, Land‑Use Change and Forestry) sector climate and biodiversity policies, if implemented, would have a massive impact on European forestry. “The targets are ambitious. However, implementing them is proving to be significantly more difficult than is often implied in political discourse. Nor have the global knock-on effects of the targets been assessed.” Forest News reported as early as December 2024 on the preliminary results of the research project. Even then, it was observed that reducing logging in the EU would increase logging elsewhere in the world and cost the EU dearly. “Achieving the LULUFC targets would multiply the risk of biodiversity loss elsewhere in the world,” Kallio told at the time on Forest News. As wood raw material production declines in the EU, processing, export revenues, investments and employment are expected to contract as well. The study forecasts a substantial transfer of income from the EU to non‑EU countries as production shifts elsewhere. According to the analysis, the marginal cost of achieving emission reductions in this scenario could rise to more than 700 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide. “By comparison, the price of a ton of carbon dioxide in the EU Emissions Trading System has been a fraction of this in recent years. If the same emission reductions can be achieved through other measures at a significantly lower cost, it raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of the policy,” Kallio notes in an interview with Audiomedia. The European Union’s LULUCF sets strict carbon sink targets for member states for the years 2026–2030. According to Kallio, in practice, this target means that forest carbon sinks must be increased rapidly. “According to a recent modelling study, achieving the LULUCF targets requires an immediate and sharp reduction in commercial timber harvesting volumes in the EU.” The magnitude of the reduction in logging volumes would be approximately 113–117 million cubic meters in 2030–2035 compared to market-driven trends. According to Kallio, this is not a matter of marginal fine-tuning, but a historic cut on the scale of forestry. “If the policy leads to logging and revenues shifting outside Europe without significant global climate benefits, it is justified to ask whether the direction is correct. The responsibility for achieving the targets and for any potential consequences lies with the member states.” According to the study’s modelling results, about two-thirds of the EU’s logging reductions would be offset by increased logging elsewhere in the world. It won’t help the climate, even if the forest carbon sink were to grow in the EU. ”A significant portion of the logging not carried out in Europe would take place in North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Chile, and other major forest regions. From a climate policy perspective, this is a key problem. If logging simply shifts geographically, global emissions will not decrease significantly.” If the use of wood decreases, it may increase the use of fossil or non-renewable materials. “The climate benefit of wood does not come solely from the carbon sequestered in forests, but also from the fact that wood replaces concrete, steel, and fossil fuels,” Kallio tells Audiomedia.

The post The benefits of wood are more than just carbon sequestering appeared first on Timberbiz.

Bark and ambrosia beetles are acting as tiny taxis for fungi across New Zealand, giving researchers valuable clues about how these organisms travel through forests and crops. Source: Timberbiz To understand whether plant disease-causing fungi are being moved this way, Bioeconomy Science Institute Maiangi Taiao scientists are identifying the species being carried on beetles found in New Zealand forests and orchards. “While a lot is known about the beetles, less is known about the fungi that travels with them,” task lead Darryl Herron said. Since 2024, researchers across the Bioeconomy Science Institute, including teams from Lincoln, Rotorua, Ruakura, Auckland and Motueka, have been collaborating to trap bark and ambrosia beetles across New Zealand and analyse the fungi they carry, through projects funded by Better Border Biosecurity (B3) and Zespri. By combining expertise and sampling capability across teams and sites, this work has revealed a broad range of fungal associates linked to native and introduced beetle species. While most of these fungi are common plant associates, the team has detected species with the potential to disrupt plantation forestry, horticulture and native ecosystems if conditions change or new beetle species arrive. The work includes assessing potential risks to native bush, urban environments and botanical collections and monitoring beetle activity in and around orchards, where new associations and increased aggressiveness in the beetle-fungal system could pose future threats. Bark and ambrosia beetles tunnel into trees and interact with fungi in different ways. The latter carry and cultivate specific fungi, while the former pick up a more mixed assortment. Together, they’re associated with a wide range of woody plants across plantation forests, orchards, urban areas and the native estate. Their rapid breeding ability means beetle numbers can rise quickly – so their fungal passengers are never short of taxis. “It’s often these fungi that cause the greatest harm,” Darryl says. “Some fungal species block a tree’s ability to move water and nutrients, weaken natural defences or accelerate disease, particularly when trees are already stressed by drought, age or harvesting activity. “By identifying these fungal “passengers”, we’re building a clearer picture of the microscopic communities being moved across New Zealand and which beetles are more important to focus on from a biosecurity perspective. This helps us assess whether these beetles have the potential to facilitate the movement of fungi not currently established in New Zealand.” Overseas, certain beetle–fungus partnerships have caused extensive forest dieback. “Our focus is understanding what risks exist here before those impacts occur,” Darryl says. “If we know which beetles can carry damaging fungi and where they’re moving, we can respond faster and reduce the risk to forests and export markets.” The research also contributes valuable information to national surveillance efforts led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and industry partners, including the Forest Owners Association, alongside other research programmes. Understanding fungal diversity being carried on these tiny beetle taxis could help refine risk modelling tools, guiding where and how surveillance and monitoring is most effective and strengthening post border surveillance. Together, these investments support New Zealand’s ability to stay ahead of emerging biosecurity risk, helping protect forests, horticulture and ecosystems and the industries and communities that depend on them. “Maintaining strong biosecurity pathways is critical for protecting plantation forestry and export markets,” Darryl says. Because bark and ambrosia beetles can occasionally arrive in wood packaging and untreated wood products brought into New Zealand, sector and public awareness remains vital. Anyone noticing dying trees accompanied by significant insect activity is asked to report it to MPI (https://report.mpi.govt.nz/pest/) or the or the Bioeconomy Science Institute (fhdiagnostics@scionresearch.com) with a clear photo of the damage and insect activity and the GPS co-ordinates or address.

The post Bark and ambrosia beetles are tiny taxis for fungi appeared first on Timberbiz.

Across the country, self-seeding “wilding conifers” are spreading beyond managed forests, taking over open land, and by the government’s own assessment, cutting into water supplies in sensitive catchments. Source: Techy44 That is why this is no longer just a forestry story. It is a water story, an energy story, and a public spending story, too. The numbers help explain the urgency. New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries says wilding conifers now affect more than 2 million hectares. Before the national control program was created, they were spreading across about 90,000 hectares a year, and the ministry estimates that as much as a quarter of the country could be covered within 30 years if the spread is left unchecked. That is a huge shift for landscapes that were never meant to become pine thickets. And what happens when those trees move into the wrong place? Less water, for the most part. A 2022 cost-benefit analysis tied to the national control effort says wilding conifers reduce surface flows and aquifer recharge in water sensitive catchments. It cites catchment studies showing annual surface water yields falling by 30% to 81% when pasture is replaced by radiata pine forest, and notes one study that found a 40% drop in mean annual flow when two-thirds of an experimental catchment was planted within pines. In practical terms, that can mean less water reaching rivers, reservoirs, irrigation systems, and hydro plants. Why hydroelectric power is part of the problem. That last point matters more than it may seem. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has warned that wildings spreading into hydro lake catchments can reduce water yields, and in turn, dam generating capacity. So yes, this reaches beyond remote hillsides and into the power system people depend on every month when the electric bill lands. New Zealand’s wilding conifer control program now costs millions. New Zealand has responded with a large, long-term control effort. MPI says that from July 2020 to June 2021, the program and its partners spent almost NZ$40 million (USD $23.45 million) on control work across 817,000 hectares. In its latest official update, the government said it has invested more than NZ$150 million (USD $88 million) in the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme since 2016, with more than NZ$33 million (USD $19.35 million) added by partners and communities. Ministers have described the trees as a threat to farmland, water catchments, native biodiversity, and wildfire resilience. That is the real takeaway here. What was once sold as useful planting now comes with a national cleanup bill.  

The post New Zealand’s good idea gone wrong appeared first on Timberbiz.