biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Bioenergy plantations or long-term carbon sinks? – A model

based analysis

Fredrik Hedenus*, Christian Azar

Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University. 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden

article info abstract

Article history: In order to mitigate climate change bio-productive land may be used mainly in two ways:
Received 20 August 2009 afforestation with long-rotation forests with the primary aim to act as carbon sinks, and
Accepted 10 September 2009 short-rotation forests that are used for energy purposes and thereby replace fossil fuels.
Under an ambitious climate target, land that may be used for both bioenergy plantations
and long-rotation forests, are likely to be scarce, and thereby competition between long-
Keywords: rotation forests and bioenergy plantations can be expected. The goal of the study is to
Climate change analyze the cost-effectiveness of bioenergy plantations versus long-rotations forests aimed
Biomass at capturing and storing carbon. The study is performed by solving and analyzing a linear
Carbon sinks optimization model that links the energy system, an afforestation sector and the pulp and
timber market. Many earlier studies tend to suggest that long-rotation forests offer lower
costs per ton of CO2 avoided. Our study, however, shows that long-rotation forests for the
purpose of carbon sequestration will not be cost-effective in the long run under a stringent
climate policy. Thus, economic efficiency considerations tend to support short-rotation
plantations for high carbon prices. The reason for this is that scarcity of land increases the
opportunity cost of land, a feature which is generally not captured in static near-term
analysis, but it is captured in a dynamic model like ours. For less stringent carbon targets
long-rotation forests, that are harvested and sold as timber are cost-effective during
a transient phase.
ª 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction storing carbon dioxide reduces the atmospheric carbon

Most of the observed global warming is very likely due to
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases [1]. In order to
limit further climatic changes the global society has to reduce
the emissions of carbon dioxide substantially during this
century. The largest share of the reduction must take place in
the energy system where conventional use of fossil fuels may
be replaced by an increasing use of solar, wind, nuclear,
biomass etc, or fossil fuel combustion with carbon capture
and storage and measures to improve energy efficiency.
Planting forests with the main purpose of sequestering and
concentration. Such sinks are expected to be less expensive
than many other abatement technologies and have, for that
reason, received considerable attention in the policy debate
about climate change.
It should, however, also be clear that carbon sinks in the
form of afforestation only capture carbon as long as there is
net growth in the forest biomass. Thus, once the forest is
mature the trees only hold carbon without any increase in the
stock. Equally important is that such carbon sinks can only
capture a rather small share of the expected emissions over
this century – even if very large areas are planted. Under the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 317723453; fax: þ46 317723150.

E-mail address: hedenus@chalmers.se (F. Hedenus).
0961-9534/$ – see front matter ª 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.09.003
1694 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702
assumption that the enormous amount of one billion hectares
of land were planted with forests acting as carbon sinks, and
that each hectare would capture and store 100 t C, then, a total
of 100 Gt C would eventually be captured (when the forest
ecosystem is in equilibrium). This is only 5–10% of the
expected carbon emissions over the next century (in the SRES
scenarios developed by the IPCC [2]).
Land may also be used for bioenergy plantations. Biomass
reduces carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuels in the
energy system. Hall [3,4] argues, that bioenergy plantations
have a larger carbon abatement potential than carbon sinks
and should therefore in general be favoured to carbon sinks.
Marland and Schlamadinger [5] analyzed which parame-
ters that determine whether bioenergy plantations or carbon
sinks have the largest carbon mitigation potential. They found
that well managed biomass plantations with high yields that
are efficiently used in the energy system, have a larger
potential of carbon mitigation than carbon sinks. They further
stress that local analysis has to be made in order to find the
most effective land use.
Kirschbaum [6] made a careful analysis of carbon sinks in
relation to the carbon cycle, but without economical consid-
erations. He concludes that temporary sinks are of little use to
mitigate climate change, whereas permanent carbon sinks
have their largest potential to mitigate climate change the
earlier they are established.
Gitz el al [7] used cost-benefit analysis to investigate the
potential role of carbon sequestration. They found that (i)
sinks should be used early in order to slow down the rate of
growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (ii) some land
should be saved so the biospheric carbon stock quickly can
be increased and thereby reduce atmosphere carbon content
if global warming turns out to be more severe than expec-
ted. Their study did, however, not take into account the fact
that bioenergy plantations and carbon sinks may compete
for the same land, which of course may alter their
conclusion.
From an economic perceptive it is, however, not clear that
bioenergy plantations are preferable to carbon sinks. The
costs of carbon sinks are sometimes estimated to be as low as
0.3–10 USD/t C in some tropical developing countries [8]. A
study for China estimate the abatement cost for afforestation
to be even negative, 12 to 2 USD per abated tonne C, whereas
the abatement cost for biomass power generation is reported
to be 30 US/t C [9]. A meta-analysis of a large number of esti-
mates of carbon sink costs found a median average cost of
25 USD/t C [10]. However, many studies omitted important
factors, such as the opportunity cost of land which of course
leads to lower cost estimates. Still, the literature suggests that
the cost of carbon abatement through the use of carbon sinks
is lower than the cost of using bioenergy plantations to
produce biomass that reduces fossil fuels.
Baral and Guha [11] investigate both the potential carbon
benefit and the cost of using forests as sinks or bioenergy
source. Using present technology to produce electricity,
carbon sinks were found to be more cost-effective. However,
they argue that future technologies such as cellulose based
ethanol production or gasification of biomass for electricity
production may reverse that conclusion. Their assumptions
on these future technologies seem, however, very optimistic.
Additionally, they did not consider changes in land values
over time.
Read argues that more than 1000 Mha of unused land ought
to be used for carbon sinks the coming 40 years [12]. The
standing carbon stock may thereafter be utilized for biofuel
production (a technology that Read argues will be more
developed by then) or for wood products. Thereafter, land
should be used for bioenergy plantations.
Gielen et al. analyze competition for land between bio-
energy and carbon sinks using an optimization model [13].
The model is global and has a detailed representation of the
energy system as well as production of some important
materials and food. They find that the time horizon of the
model is crucial as to whether sinks are cost-effective or not.
Running the model to 2040 result in some carbon sinks being
established during the period 2020–2030, but extending the
model horizon to 2100 makes the sinks disappear 2020–2030.
They conclude that under a cap and trade system for carbon
emissions agents with short-time horizons might invest in
sinks, but that this strategy is sub-optimal from a social
planner perspective.
From a physical perspective bioenergy plantations, if effi-
ciently used, are preferable to carbon sinks, in the sense that
they have a larger abatement potential per hectare of land.
From a short-term economic perspective, on the other hand,
carbon sinks seem to be more profitable.
In this study we merge both physical and economic
perspectives on bioenergy plantations and carbon sinks by
developing and analyzing a cost-minimization model. The
model includes the whole energy system rather than
comparing a few different conversion technologies. Also the
timber and pulp market is included in order to study to what
extent long-rotation forests may be sold as pulp and timber.
Analyzing this rather large system, we can yield insights that
cannot be reached using more partial or static models. On the
other hand, a more aggregate model like this will necessarily
be less rich in details.
The aim of this paper is:
 to examine whether long-rotation forests (which grow at
a slower pace but eventually come to store more carbon) or
short-rotation forests (used for biomass production to
replace fossil fuels) are most cost-effective in order to reach
certain atmospheric carbon dioxide targets.
The analysis is made by developing and using a linear
optimization model, where the combined costs of the energy
system and forestry sector are minimized under an atmo-
spheric carbon constraint.
The paper is structured as follows: in section two, the
model is described and parameter values are presented.
Section three contains the results, and section four contains
the conclusions. The appendix contains parameter values for
the energy system.
2. Description of the optimization model
The model used is a bottom–up model with perfect foresight.
A schematic picture of the model is shown in Fig. 1. The
 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702 1695

(rotation time longer than 50 years), and short-rotation forests

Energy Heat
Energy sources (rotation time less than 10 years). Long-rotation forests may
conversion
supply timber, pulp and bioenergy whereas short-rotation
Electricity
forests may only supply pulp and bioenergy.

Afforestation Transp. fuel

Carbon cycle
Timber
and Pulp
Atmospheric
carbon dioxide
concentration
Fig. 1 – Schematic figure of the model.
objective of the model is to minimize the aggregate costs
under two main constraints: energy demand and an atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide target. Demand levels for heat, elec-
tricity and transportation fuels are exogenously set and must
be supplied from the following energy sources: coal, oil,
natural gas, wind, hydropower, nuclear power, solar or bio-
energy. The costs include capital investments in the energy
system and fuel costs, as well as costs for establishing,
maintaining and harvesting forests. Incomes may be gener-
ated by selling timber and pulp from the afforestation system.
All prices are expressed in USD2000. Since long-rotation
forests are a long-term commitment, terminal condition of
the model may influence the results for long periods [13]. We
are, for that reason, running the model for the period 2000–
2250 – even if we only show the results for the period 2000–
2100. Further, a discount rate of 4%/yr is used.
2.1. Bioenergy and biospheric carbon stocks
The model distinguishes between two different types of bio-
energy sources: residues and bioenergy from the afforestation
system. The residues are supplied from agricultural land and
from managed forests and the supply potential is 50 EJ per
year. The afforestation system includes a given area of land,
currently not under forest cover, in four different climate
zones, which may be targeted for either long-rotation forests
2.1.1. Carbon sequestration in the forestry system
The forests in the model are assumed to grow at a constant
rate until the end of the rotation period is reached. This linear
modelling is not fully correct, a more accurate function as in
[14,15], could be used but our approximation is probably not
more severe than other approximations in the model and is
not likely to significantly alter the results of our runs. The
rotation time determines maximum time of growth, which
does not necessarily mean that the forest is harvested at that
time. Short-rotation forests are assumed to be harvested at
their rotation time.
The world is divided into four forestry zones, a boreal,
a western and an eastern temperate and a tropical. In all zones,
there are one type of long-rotation forest and one type of short-
rotation forest. Growth rates and rotations times are estimated
by data in references [14–18] and are shown in Table 1. Not all
of the forest growth may be utilized for timber or bioenergy,
since some part of the growth end up in the roots. It is assumed
that 20% of total growth occurs in roots [14].
The carbon stock in forest soils may increase through
litter and root decomposition [19]. Pasture land, where the
afforestation is assumed to take place, typically holds lower
amounts of soil carbon than forest land. The amount of
carbon soil is assumed to increase linearly up to an upper
limit, depending of the forest type [14]. The maximum level
of soil carbon for different vegetation types is given in Table
1. If forests are harvested and not replanted, the land is
assumed to return to pasture land, and thereby releasing the
stored soil carbon.
The growth rate for soil carbon is estimated to be 0.5 tC/ha/
yr for all forest types [14]. However, the growth rate is probably
higher for tropical plantations, up to 2 tC/ha/yr [16]. Estimates
used in the model are shown in Table 1.
2.1.2. Costs and revenues of afforestation
The model distinguishes between establishment, mainte-
nance and harvest costs. Estimates are uncertain as studies

Table 1 – Data on rotation time and growth rate for different forest types. Also the growth rate for soil carbon and maximum
amount of soil carbon are presented.
Zone Type Rotation (yr) Growth (t C/ha/yr) Max soil (tC/ha) Soil C (tC/ha/yr)

Boreal Pasture – – 90 0
Long-rotation forest 100 1.5 160 0.5
Short-rotation forest 5 5 100 0.5
Western temp Pasture – 110 0
Long-rotation forest 80 2 130 0.5
Short-rotation forest 10 5 120 0.5
Eastern temp Pasture – 110 0
Long-rotation forest 80 2 130 0.5
Short-rotation forest 10 5 120 0.5
Tropical Pasture – 50 0
Long-rotation forest 60 4 130 1.5
Short-rotation forest 5 8 130 1.5
1696 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702

Table 2 – Estimates of costs to establish maintain and harvest different forest types.
Zone Type Estab (USD/ha) Maintenance (USD/ha/yr) Harvesta USD/t DM

Boreal Long-rotation forestb 350 10 70

Short-rotation forestc 1200 40 25
Western temp Long-rotation forestd 500 50 70
Short-rotation foreste 1000 150 25
Eastern temp Long-rotation forestf 250 10 60
Short-rotation forestg 300 30 20
Tropical Long-rotation foresth 500 10 60
Short-rotation foresti 400 70 20

a Clear-cutting and transportation cost of long-rotation forests in the US are estimated to 70 USD/t DM [21]. Harvest and transportation of
plantation forest are reported to cost 25 USD/t DM in Indonesia [22], 12–14 USD/t DM in USA, and around 23 USD/t DM in Sweden [23, 24].
b Boreal forests in Canada is estimated to cost around 600 USD/ha to establish, and in Russia 250 USD/ha [17].
c Willow plantations are estimated to cost 1200 USD/ha to establish and 40 USD/ha/yr to maintain [26,24]. Willow is harvested every 4th year,
but are established only every 24th year
d Long-rotation forests in the US are reported to cost 500 USD/ha to establish and 50 USD/ha/yr to maintain [17,25].
e Estimates of plantation costs USA indicate about 800–1000 USD/ha in establishment cost and 170 USD/ha/yr in maintenance costs [23,24].
f Establishment of 65 year rotation forest in China is reported to cost around 250 USD/ha, and less than 10 USD/ha/yr to maintain [27,28].
g Establishment costs for short-term plantations in China are estimated to 250 USD/ha [27] and a bit more for 20 year rotation plantation [17,28],
the maintenance cost estimated to around 25 USD/ha/yr
h Establishment costs for long-rotation forests in the tropics range from 450–700 USD/ha [29].
i Tropical plantations in Thailand with a 5 year rotation time is reported to cost 500 USD/ha to establish [30] and in Indonesia a ten year rotation
forest costs 300 USD/ha to establish [16]. Further cost estimates gives 350 USD/ha in Zaire and 150 in Malaysia [17]. A cross country study
concluded that short-term tropical plantations cost 150–450 USD/ha to establish [29]. Maintenance costs range from 50 to 80 USD/ha and year.

differ in their methodology, and that there are different cost
levels in different countries. The figures shown in Table 2 are
therefore rather rough estimates. Processing and trans-
portation of bioenergy are assumed to cost an additional
0.5 USD/GJ.
The demand and price of bioenergy and sinks depend both
on the energy system and the pulp and timber market.
Therefore the supply of timber and pulp from currently
forested areas are also included in the model, by including
explicit supply functions. The data are based on a forecast by
Lee and Lyon [20]. Step-wise supply functions for pulp and
timber for existing managed forests and remote (presently
inaccessible) forests are derived from their base, high and very
high demand scenarios. The timber and pulp supply functions
are further interrelated, which means that a high supply of
pulp results in higher timber prices. The base demand
scenarios for pulp and timber demand are used in our refer-
ence scenario. In this scenario the timber demand does not
increase significantly compared to today’s level, whereas pulp
demand increases by 60% to 2070 and thereafter stabilizes.
Thus, the model may either supply timber or pulp from
existing managed forests and remote forests, or by establishing
forest plantations on new land. We assume that a maximum of
70% of the long-rotation forests may be sold as timber, since
mainly trunks may be utilized for timber supply, the remaining
30% may be used for pulp or bioenergy. Short-rotations forests
may only be utilized for pulp or bioenergy. Since pulp mostly is
used in short-run products, the carbon stored in pulp is
considered to be released immediately, whereas 20% of the
carbon stored in timber is released every decade.
2.1.3. Land potentials
There are different factors limiting large-scale afforestation
programmes. First, land must be biologically suitable for
afforestation. In addition there must also be an infrastructure
as well as suitable social and cultural conditions. Also
a growing population demands more food, and land can be
expected to be used for agricultural purposes to a large extent.
In our base case, we estimate that in 2050 there are 50 Mha of
land in the boreal zone, 165 Mha in the temperate and
135 Mha in the tropics [14] available for forest plantations
(both short- and long-term rotation). The development of land
potential from 2050 to 2100 is dependent on several factors,
driving in different directions. A wealthier population
suggests that even larger areas of land are likely to be used for
food production, and thereby less land will be available for
afforestation. On the other hand a more efficient food
production, and perhaps a more developed infrastructure into
remote areas indicates the opposite. We assume the land
potentials in 2100 to be 40% larger than in 2050. The exact
values for these assumptions can of course be discussed, and
some will argue that less land not more will be available for
plantations in the year 2100. However, exact values will only
determine how much bioenergy or sinks capacity one will
achieve and not the extent to which one will be more cost-
competitive than the other, which is the main question for us
in this paper.
The temperate zone is divided into the western and eastern
part, 1/3 of the area is assumed to be in the western temperate
zone, and 2/3 in the eastern. During the 80s around 3 Mha of
plantations were established annually in the tropics [31]. We
assume a maximum expansion rate of 30 Mha/decade of
afforested area in each region.
Since the land assumed available for forest plantations in
this paper may be used for food production (primarily for
grazing), there is an opportunity cost for land targeted for
afforestation. It is hard to estimate future opportunity costs of
land, especially since the food system is not included in the
 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702
model. However, it is important to include the land rent since
sinks as well as bioenergy plantations otherwise become
unrealistically cheap [10]. We use estimates of opportunity
cost from Gitz el al [7]. The land rents today stretches from
10 USD/ha/yr in Africa to 200 USD/ha/yr in rice growing Asian
countries. It should also be noted that the model will generate
an opportunity cost for using land for long-rotation planta-
tions that is equal to the forgone economic value of using it for
short-rotation plantations.
2.2. The energy system
The cost-effectiveness of using bioenergy and sinks is
dependent on the costs of other energy sources, as well as the
costs and efficiencies for biomass conversion plants. In order
to get an accurate representation of the dynamics in the
energy system, a sub-model of the energy system is included
in the overall model. The main assumptions and the structure
of the energy system in the model are based on Azar et al. [32],
which is the default source.
The energy demand is divided into three sectors; heat,
transportation and electricity. The energy demand is based on
MESSAGE’s B2-scenario [33]. The cost of the final energy
supply is determined by the fuel price, the capital costs and
the conversion efficiency into final energy. Fuel costs,
investment costs and load factors for different technologies
are found in Appendix A.
There are limits on the potential supply of energy sources.
The fossil reserves are assumed to be 12 ZJ for oil and 10 ZJ for
natural gas, whereas the coal reserves are estimated to be
200 ZJ, much larger than what is used in the reference
scenario during the entire period. Further hydropower is
constrained to 20 EJ/yr electricity due to a lack of acceptable
sites for dams. Wind power and solar cells without energy
storage option are individually limited to 12% of the electricity
supply due to the intermittent nature of the energy sources.
Hydrogen produced from solar energy is, however, not
limited. Finally, nuclear power is exogenously limited to the
current level of installed capacity due to the political contro-
versies surrounding this technology.
The possibility of carbon capture and storage from fossil
fuels and bioenergy is included in the model. The technology
is assumed to capture 90% of the carbon, and the trans-
portation and storage cost is estimated to 37 USD/t C for fossil
fuels and 73 USD/t C for biomass. The potential is, however,
constrained in three different ways. Firstly, carbon capture is
only possible in large-scale plants, thus it is assumed that
a maximum of 30% of the heat demand may be supplied with
carbon capture technologies. Secondly the total expansion of
carbon storage per decade is constrained to 2 Gt C/year
annually, due to inertia in the infrastructure and preparation
of storage sites, and thirdly the total storage potential is
limited to 600 Gt C.
The primary energy sources are converted into electricity,
heat and transportation fuels. Transportation fuel may be
diesel and gasoline, as well as methanol produced from either
fossil fuels or biomass, and hydrogen produced from solar or
fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. Hydrogen may
also be used for heating and electricity production. In the
1697
transportation sector, fuel cell cars are assumed to be avail-
able by the year 2030.
2.3. Atmospheric carbon constraints
All uptake and emissions from the energy and afforestation
system are accounted for, and the atmospheric carbon
concentration is calculated using a parameterized version of
the Bern carbon cycle [1, p 221].
Due to uncertainty about the climate sensitivity it is also
uncertain which level of carbon dioxide we can allow without
causing dangerous interference with the climate [34]. There-
fore we evaluate four different stabilization scenarios,
a maximum of 400, 500, 600 ppm carbon in the atmosphere in
2100, as well as a scenario with no carbon constraint.
2.4. Aspects not considered in the model
All modelling approaches have their specific limitations.
Some simplifications do not have any important impact on the
results, whereas others might influence the results if they
were included. Some of these will be discussed below.
Local ecological and social aspects of forestry are not
included in the model framework. This is especially important
since short-rotation plantations do not really deserve to be
termed forests since these managed ecosystems more
resemble conventional agriculture than forests, and the
biodiversity in these plantations is minimal. For that reason,
long-rotation unmanaged forests clearly have other benefits
that would strengthen the desirability of these forests. It is
also important to note that there is a continuum of forest
types in between what we refer to as short-rotation and long-
rotation forests, and we only investigate the two extremes in
this continuum.
Further, the energy system is simplified in various ways,
aspects such as energy security and local pollutants are not
considered in the model. Capital costs and infrastructure in
the transportation system are not described in detail,
however, it is unlikely that this would affect land use in any
significant way. The energy demand is exogenously given. The
importance of this factor is, however, analyzed in the sensi-
tivity analysis.
The model has perfect foresight, which means that the
impact of expectations and uncertainties of companies and
other stakeholders is omitted. The model gives the cost-
effective solution from a social planner perspective, which
might not be consistent with the behaviour of separate
stakeholders.
Further the energy as well as the pulp and timber demand
in the model are aggregated to the global level, whereas the
afforestation system is regionalized. No limitations or costs
for long way transportation of pulp and paper or energy
sources are included.
Finally, the model includes full carbon accounting for the
afforestation system, whereas the carbon stock for managed
and remote forests is assumed to be constant. This
assumption is probably not that severe since the annual
timber demand is expected to be around 800 million m3 2050
[20], which corresponds to about 240 Mt C. The aggregate
timber harvest during the 21th century is thus approximately
1698 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702
24 Gt of carbon, which is around 2% of the expected emission
the next hundred years. In addition, most of this will even-
tually be released to the atmosphere. Thus, possible carbon
stock increases in the use of woody products will never
become anything else than a marginal carbon mitigation
option.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Afforestation
The cost-effective use of land is partly determined by the
climate policy. A stringent carbon target generates a higher
price for carbon, which in turn affects the competitiveness
between different energy sources, as well as the competition
between short- and long-rotation forests.
In the scenario without climate policy, both long- and
short-rotation forests are established in the tropical zone, in
total around 100 Mha in the year 2100, in order to meet the
demand for pulp and timber. No commercial biomass is used
in the energy system (fossil fuels are always more cost-
competitive).
In the 600 ppm scenario (see Fig. 2) long-rotation forests are
first established in the tropics, but they are replaced by short-
rotation forests towards the end of the century since the
shadow price on carbon increases over time (the constraint on
atmospheric carbon constraint implies that the shadow price
on emissions increases over time).
Short-rotation forests are established in all climate zones
in the latter part of the century as carbon abatement is
required to meet the carbon constraint. The long-rotation
forests are utilized for pulp and timber production, but as
the long-rotation forests are replaced (after 2060) most
timber and pulp are supplied from remote forests (which are
presently inaccessible) and through increased harvests in
managed forests. Thus, in the 600 ppm scenario, carbon
sinks in the tropics are cost-effective during a transient
phase.
In the 500 ppm scenario, an area of around 10 Mha long-
rotation forests is established in the tropics but this area is
subsequently replaced by short-rotation forests from 2050 and
onward. Overall, there is a massive expansion of bioenergy
plantations from 2050 and onwards.
Afforestation in 600 ppm scenario
500
450
400
350 Trop short rot
300
Mha
250
East short rot
200
150
West short rot
100
50 Bor short rot
0 Trop long rot
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Fig. 2 – The land use in 600 ppm scenario.
In the 400 ppm scenario, carbon abatement starts early.
Only short-rotation forests are established and they are used
for bioenergy purpose and to a limited degree for pulp
production, see Fig. 3. All timber and most pulp are thus
supplied from the existing forestry system.
3.2. Generalised results
We then analyze 18 stabilization scenarios, ranging from
400 ppm to 850 ppm and plot the area of long- and short-
rotation forests in the years 2050 and 2100 as a function of the
stabilization level. In all scenarios there are more short-rota-
tion forests in 2100 than in 2050, whereas the opposite holds
for long-rotation forests in all scenarios below 750 ppm, see
Figs. 4 and 5. We can thus see that the cost-effectiveness of
short-rotation forests increase with more ambitious climate
targets. And that long-rotation forests in the long run are
replaced by short-rotation forests.
We may now observe some general patterns. No long-
rotation forests are left standing in perpetuity, rather long-
rotation forests are established in order to supply timber. For
that reason the area used for long-rotation forests is limited
by the timber demand. A carbon target first makes timber
from afforestation profitable, but as the carbon target
becomes more stringent bioenergy becomes an even more
profitable option.
3.3. The energy system
If there is no atmospheric carbon constraint, the energy
system is dominated by coal, oil and gas, and some wind
power, hydropower and nuclear power. A carbon target of
600 ppm results in intense utilization of coal with carbon
capture and storage and solar from the year 2060. Biomass is
utilized in the heat sector to some extent during the whole
period, but expands rapidly from 2060 and onwards.
In the 500 ppm scenario there is an extensive use of coal
with carbon capture and storage, and at the end of the century
also biomass and gas are used with carbon capture and
storage. Solar photovoltaic expands heavily from 2050.
In the 400 ppm scenario a large amount of bioenergy is
utilized throughout the period, and is mainly used with
carbon capture and storage in order to obtain negative carbon
emissions [32,35]. Solar photovoltaic is introduced already in
2030 and is mainly used for hydrogen production, see Fig. 6.
Afforestation in 400 ppm scenario
500
450
400 Tropical short
rotation
350
300
Eastern
Mha
250
temperate short
200 Western rototation
150 temperate short
100 rototation
50 Boreal short
0 rotation
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Fig. 3 – The land use in the 400 ppm scenario.
 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702 1699

2050 Primary Energy Supply, 400 ppm scenario

500 1200

400 Short-rotation forests Hydro and Wind

1000
nuclear
300
Mha

800
Solar
200

EJ
Long-rotation forests 600
100 Coal-CCS
400 Oil and Gas CCS
0 Coal
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 200
Oil and Gas
stablization level by 2100 (ppm)
Biomass Biomass-CCS
0
Fig. 4 – Area afforested with long- and short-rotation 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
forests in 2050 for different stabilization scenarios.
Fig. 6 – The primary energy supply in the 400 ppm.

becomes saturated rather quickly, and the storage of carbon in

3.4. Intuitive explanation of the results
timber cannot influence the atmospheric carbon content
significantly.
Our key result is that short-rotation forests are the most cost-
If long-rotation forests are to expand above what is
effective carbon abatement option for scarce land that can be
required to meet the timber demand, they must be profitable
used for either long-rotation or short-rotation forests under
as permanent carbon stocks. In Fig. 8 the profitability of long-
a stringent carbon policy. However, we also find that long-
rotation forests in the tropics used only for the purpose of
rotation forests are cost-effective during a transient phase for
storing carbon and for timber supply as well as short-rotation
less stringent carbon targets. Since many studies suggest that
forests is illustrated. The profit per ha established forests is
carbon sinks have a lower abatement cost per tonne C avoided
illustrated as a function of a constant carbon tax. Thus, all
than bioenergy plantations, a more detailed discussion is
carbon flows are calculated, and costs and revenues are dis-
needed in order to understand why short-rotation forests
counted annually by 4%.
outcompete long-rotation forests in our model.
In the tropics timber production is profitable even without
In Fig. 7 the carbon mitigation potential in tonne carbon
a carbon price, which is consistent with the timber model
from long- and short-rotation forests is illustrated per hectare
used. A carbon tax of around 50 USD/t C, makes permanent
of bio-productive land. The short-rotation forest is assumed to
long-rotation forests profitable, whereas bioenergy becomes
produce bioenergy that replaces coal in the electricity sector.
the most profitable option if the carbon price increases to
Sustainably grown bioenergy can replace fossil fuels on
around 200 USD/t C.
a permanent basis and therefore the cumulative carbon
Under the assumption that the landowner will choose the
benefit grows linearly (in this stylised analysis where we
most profitable activity on their land, we can see that the
assume that the same fuel with the same conversion effi-
establishment of sinks will in fact delay the introduction of
ciency is replaced). The long-rotation forests on the other
bioenergy plantations, since the profitability of sinks is higher
hand are assumed to be permanent, but the forests stop
until around 200 USD/t C, whereas if no carbon sinks were
growing after some time (in this case 60 years). In these
established bioenergy plantations would be profitable already
calculations we assume the growth rate of short-rotation
at less than 100 USD/t C.
forests to be 5 tC/ha/yr, and 2 tC/ha/yr for long-rotation
This graph explains the results obtained in our optimiza-
forests.
tion model. For less stringent carbon scenarios, the price of
Long-rotation forests may be sold as timber (hardwood,
used for long-lived products), which tends to lower the cost of
the carbon sink. However, the potential market for timber
Bioenergy versus sinks
accumulative carbon reduction
600
2100 short rotation
500 500 forest
Short-rotation forests
400 long rotation
400
forest
tC/ha

300 300
Mha

200
200
100 Long-rotation forests 100
0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 0
stablization level by 2100 (ppm) 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Fig. 5 – Area afforested with long- and short-rotation Fig. 7 – Carbon reduction for permanent sinks and
forests in 2100 for different stabilization targets. bioenergy plantations.
1700 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702
Bioenergy versus carbon sinks -
net present value of expected profits
40000
35000 timber
30000 permanent
sink
25000
U SD /ha
bioenergy
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 100 200
USD per ton C
Fig. 8 – Profitability in net present value terms in the
tropical zone for bioenergy, permanent long-rotation
forests and long-rotation forests harvested and sold as
timber as a function of a constant carbon tax.
carbon (equivalent to the tax in the graphs) increases slowly,
and thereby makes long-rotation forests for timber produc-
tion more profitable. The carbon price increases with time,
which makes bioenergy plantations more profitable, which
means that the long-rotation forests are replaced by the short-
rotation forests. In the 400 ppm scenario, the price of carbon
increases so fast that long-rotation forests are never cost-
effective to establish.
In summary, long-rotation forests are more cost-effective
as a carbon abatement technology than bioenergy plantation
for low prices of carbon and if the long-rotation forest is
eventually sold as timber. This potential will, however, be
saturated rather quickly. So, long-rotation forests as perma-
nent carbon sinks are only more profitable than short-rotation
forests in a interval for the carbon price. As the carbon price
rises over time, the carbon price does not stabilize in that
interval long enough to make permanent carbon sinks cost-
effective.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
In this section we test the robustness of our results regarding
some crucial parameters. If nothing else is mentioned the
parameters are adjusted by 50%.
Altering growth rate of long-rotation forests does not change
the results significantly. The main change is that more long-
rotation forests are established in the 600 ppm scenario and
no climate policy scenarios if the growth rate is reduced.
Although this may be surprising, the reason is that long-
rotation forests are still profitable for timber production, and
larger areas must be targeted to fulfill the demand since the
growth rate is lower, and the full land potential is not utilized
in the these two scenarios.
Increased costs of short-rotation forests result in somewhat
larger areas with long-rotation forests in all scenarios. These
forests, however, again are only present in a transient phase.
Decreased costs reduce the amount of long-rotation forests in
all scenarios.
An increased amount of available land reduces the
competition for land, which mainly results in that long-
rotation forests remain longer. The reverse is the case for
reduced amount of available land, the competition for land
increases and long-rotation forests are replaced earlier. No
long-rotation forests are established in the 400 ppm
scenarios regardless of whether the land potential is
increased or decreased.
If the maximum storage capacity of carbon is reduced, the
shadow price on carbon increases as it becomes more
expensive to reduce carbon emissions in the energy sector.
Therefore, the area of short-rotation forests in the 500 and
300
600 ppm scenario increases significantly. A higher storage
capacity does not change the result significantly compared to
the reference case.
Reduced energy demand tends to reduce the price of carbon,
and thereby make long-rotation forests more competitive.
More long-rotation forests are established in all scenarios
with a carbon constraint, and they remain longer than in the
base case. Increased energy demand on the other hand makes
bioenergy more cost-effective, which reduces the area of long-
rotation forests considerably.
An increased timber and pulp demand makes it possible to
sell more of the harvest from long-rotation forests as timber
and to a higher price, which increases the area targeted for
long-rotation forests. Even in the 400 ppm scenario long-
rotation forests are established to supply timber, even
though these forests are replaced around the year 2100. In
the 500 and 600 ppm scenario more long-rotation forest are
established than in the base case, and some of these forests
(10–20 Mha) are not replaced even in the long run (2200).
Nevertheless since the timber demand is limited, most land
is still used for bioenergy plantations. Reduced demand
eventually results in less areas are targeted for long-rotation
forests.
The basic dynamics, that long-rotation forests, if estab-
lished, are replaced by short-rotation forests, hold also in our
sensitivity analysis. Altered parameters may influence when
the replacement occurs, and to which degree long-rotation
forests are established. The only parameters that potentially
alter the dynamics are a high timber demand in scenarios
with less ambitious carbon targets. In that case, limited areas
of long-rotation forests used for timber supply may be cost-
effective even in the long run.
4. Conclusions
The main question in this study was the dynamics of cost-
effectiveness between short-rotation and long-rotation
forests in order reach certain carbon targets. Our results may
be summarized as:
 For stringent carbon targets, around 400 ppm, it is cost-
effective to use all land for short-rotation forest.
 For less stringent carbon targets long-rotation forests may
be cost-effective during a transient phase.
 On land that is suitable for both short-rotation and long-
rotation forests, the long-rotation forests will eventually be
harvested and replaced by short-rotation forests. It is thus
unlikely that it is cost-effective to have permanent
 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702 1701

biospheric sinks on land that also are suitable for bioenergy
plantations.
 The cost-effectiveness of long-rotation forests is increased
if the forests are harvested and sold as timber. This abate-
ment potential is, however, limited by the timber demand.
Since the need for carbon abatement is much larger than the
timber demand, this implies that the potential for cheap
sinks will be rather small compared to the aggregate need
for carbon abatement.
 Long-rotation forests used as permanent sinks are only
cost-effective in an interval of the carbon price between 50
and 200 USD/t C.
These results, as all modelling results, must, be inter-
preted with care. Our model is aggregated and is only
investigating the cost-effectiveness of afforestation under an
increasingly ambitious climate policy. At a more dis-
aggregated level, activities such as re-establishing tropical
forests to preserve biodiversity may be of great value (but we
have not considered such values in this paper). Here, we
have only considered carbon and timber benefits of land use
changes and looked at land where short-rotation forests are
also possible.
This means that our results should not be perceived as an
argument against afforestation of tropical forests. On the
contrary, such re-establishments may be expected to be
profitable under the assumption that the land owners get
paid for the carbon that the forest sequester. What we have
shown is that the land owners may make even higher profits
by establishing short-rotation biomass plantations (given
proximity to markets, reasonable yields etc). Thus, the
common view, that carbon sinks are a more cost-effective
option derived in static frameworks with low carbon prices,
does not hold in dynamic models with more ambitious
climate targets.
It is also important to note that we find the cost-effective
solution from the perspective of a social planner that has
perfect foresight. In the real world, companies have limited
foresight. Therefore it might seem profitable for them to
establish carbon sinks. Under the assumption that our results
are correct, i.e. that short-rotation forests are cost-effective in
the long run, it seems important to design policy instruments
that do not give incentives to plant long-rotation forests on
land where it in the long run can be expected to be cost-
effective to establish short-rotation forests.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Kristian Lindgren, Göran Berndes, and
Daniel Johansson for valuable discussions and comments
during the work. We also thank the Swedish Energy Agency
for financial support.

Appendix.

Table A1 – Fuel costs, and capital cost and efficiency for heat production with and without carbon capture and storage.
Fuel Fuel cost Heat

Cost USD/GJ Carbon cont Inv. Cost USD/kW Eff % Inv CCS USD/kW Eff %
kg C/GJ

Oil 3 20 100 90 300 80

Natural gas 2.5 15 100 90 300 80
Coal 1 25 300 90 500 80
Biomass 2.5 300 90 500 80
Hydrogen 100 90
PV

Table A2 – Capital cost and efficiency for electricity and hydrogen production with and without carbon capture and storage.
Fuel Electricity production Hydrogen production

Inv cost USD/kW Eff % Inv cost USD/kW Eff % Inv. Cost USD/kW Eff % Inv CCS USD/kW Eff %

Oil 600 50 1000 40 400 75 600 70

Natural gas 500 55 900 45 300 80 500 75
Coal 1100 45 1500 35 700 65 900 60
Biomass 1200 40 1700 30 800 60 1000 55
Hydrogen 500 55
PV 1200 n.a 2000 n.a
Wind power 600 n.a
Hydropower 1000 n.a
Nuclear power 2000 33
1702 biomass and bioenergy 33 (2009) 1693–1702

references [17] Dixon RK, Schroeder PE, Winjum JK. Assessment of

promising forest management practices and technologies for
enhancing the conservation and sequestration of
atmospheric carbon and their costs at the site level. US
[1] IPCC. Contribution of working group I to the fourth
Environmental Protection Agency; 1991.
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
[18] Fischer G, Velthuizen H, Prieler S. Assessment of potential
climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z,
productivity of tree species in China, Mongolia and the
Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. Climate
former Soviet Union: methodology and results. Interim
change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge, United
Report IR-01–015. IIASA; March 2001.
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University
[19] Paul KI, Polglase PJ, Nyakuengama JG, Khanna PK. Change in
Press; 2007.
soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecology and
[2] Nakicenovic N, editor. Special report on emissions scenarios.
Management 2002;168:241–57.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2000.
[20] Lee DM, Lyon KS. A dynamic analysis of the global timber
[3] Hall DO, Mynick HE, Williams RH. Alternative roles for
market under global warming: an integrated modelling
biomass in coping with greenhouse warming. Science and
approach. Southern Economic Journal 2004;70(3):467–89.
Global Security 1991;2:113–51.
[21] Session J. Personal communication; 2004.
[4] Hall DO, Mynick HE, Williams RH. Cooling the greenhouse
[22] Kosonen M, Otsamob A, Kuusipaloet J. Financial, economic
with bioenergy. Nature 1991;353:11–2.
and environmental profitability of reforestation of Imperata
[5] Marland G, Schlamadinger B. Forests for carbon
grassland in Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management
sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity
1997;99:247–59.
analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 1997;13:389–97.
[23] Walsh M. Costs and supply of biomass by US region. In:
[6] Kirschbaum MUF. To sink or burn? A discussion of the
Presented at Iowa pursuit of energy efficiency; October 25–26,
potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances
1994.
through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass and
[24] Ledin S, Alriksson A, editors. Handbook on how to grow short
Bioenergy 2003;24:297–310.
rotation forests. Uppsala: Swedish Univeristy of Agricultural
[7] Gitz V, Hourcade J-C, Ciais P. Optimal timing of biological
Sciences; 1992.
sequestration in the context of uncertanity and learning. In:
[25] College of Forestry, Oregon State University. http://www.cof.
Presented at 2004 IEW meeting, Paris, France; 22–24 June
orst.edu/resfor/blodgett/blodplan/harvest.htm 20030924.
2004.
[26] Rosenqvist Salixodling H. Kalkylmetoder och lönsamhet.
[8] IPCC climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of
Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Uppsala; 1997.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge,
[27] Xu D, X-Zhang Q, Shi Z. Mitigation potential for carbon
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
sequestration through forestry activity in southern and
University Press; 2007.
eastern China. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
[9] Markandya A, Halsnaes K, editors. Climate change and
Global Change 2001;6:213–32.
sustainable development: prospects for developing
[28] Xu D. The potential for reducing atmospheric carbon by
countries. Earthscan Publication Ltd; 2002.
large-scale afforestation in China and related cost/benefit
[10] van Kooten CG, Eagle AJ, Manley J, Smolak T. How costly are
analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 1995;5:337–44.
carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks.
[29] Sathaye JA, Makundi WR, Andrasko K, Boer R,
Environmental Science & Policy 2004;7:239–51.
Ravindranath NH, Sudha P. Carbon mitigation potential and
[11] Baral D, Guha GS. Trees for carbon sequestration or fossil
costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia,
fuel substitution: the issue of cost vs carbon benefit. Biomass
Mexico, The Philippines and Tanzania. Mitigation and
and Bioenergy 2004;27:41–55.
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2001;6:185–211.
[12] Read P. Dynamic interaction of short rotations and
[30] Hector B. Biomass fuels in international trade a future viable
conventional forestry in meeting demand for bioenergy in
option SLU; 2001.
the least cost mitigation strategy. Biomass and Bioenergy
[31] Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R, Sedjo R. Forest management,
1998;1:7–15.
conservation, and global timber markets. American Journal
[13] Gielen D, Fujino J, Hashimoto S, Moriguchi Y. Modeling of
of Agricultural Economics 1999;1:1–13.
global biomass policies. Biomass and Bioenergy 2003;25:
[32] Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K. Carbon capture
177–95.
and storage from fossil fuels and biomass – costs and
[14] Nilsson S, Schopfhauser W. The carbon sequestration
potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Climatic Change
potential of a global afforestation program. Climatic Change
2006;74:47–79.
1995;30:267–93.
[33] Nakicenovic N, Grübler A, McDonald A, editors. Global
[15] Nabuurs GJ, Mohren GMJ. Carbon fixation through
energy perspective. Cambrige University Press; 1999.
forestation activities, IBN research report 93/4; 1993.
[34] Azar C, Rodhe H. Targets for stabilization of atmospheric
[16] Boer R. Economic assessment of mitigation options for
CO2. Science 1997;276:1818–9.
enhancing and maintaining carbon sink capacity in
[35] Obersteiner M, Azar C, Kauppi P, Mollersten K, Moreira J,
Indonesia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Nilsson P, et al. Managing climate risk. Science 2001;294:786–7.
Change 2001;6:257–90.