Policy design, spatial planning and climate change adaptation: a case study from Australia

<div><p>There are gaps in the existing climate change adaptation literature concerning the design of spatial planning instruments and the relationship between policy instruments and the sociopolitical barriers to adaptation reform. To help address this gap, this article presents a typology of spatial planning instruments for adaptation and analyses the pattern of instrument choice in Australian planning processes in order to shed light on contextual factors that can impede adaptation. The analysis highlights how policy design can amplify the barriers to adaptation by arranging policy actors in ways inimical to reform and stripping decision makers of the instruments necessary to make and sustain desired policy changes.</p></div

Under What Circumstances Do Wood Products from Native Forests Benefit Climate Change Mitigation?

<div><p>Climate change mitigation benefits from the land sector are not being fully realised because of uncertainty and controversy about the role of native forest management. The dominant policy view, as stated in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, is that sustainable forest harvesting yielding wood products, generates the largest mitigation benefit. We demonstrate that changing native forest management from commercial harvesting to conservation can make an important contribution to mitigation. Conservation of native forests results in an immediate and substantial reduction in net emissions relative to a reference case of commercial harvesting. We calibrated models to simulate scenarios of native forest management for two Australian case studies: mixed-eucalypt in New South Wales and Mountain Ash in Victoria. Carbon stocks in the harvested forest included forest biomass, wood and paper products, waste in landfill, and bioenergy that substituted for fossil fuel energy. The conservation forest included forest biomass, and subtracted stocks for the foregone products that were substituted by non-wood products or plantation products. Total carbon stocks were lower in harvested forest than in conservation forest in both case studies over the 100-year simulation period. We tested a range of potential parameter values reported in the literature: none could increase the combined carbon stock in products, slash, landfill and substitution sufficiently to exceed the increase in carbon stock due to changing management of native forest to conservation. The key parameters determining carbon stock change under different forest management scenarios are those affecting accumulation of carbon in forest biomass, rather than parameters affecting transfers among wood products. This analysis helps prioritise mitigation activities to focus on maximising forest biomass. International forest-related policies, including negotiations under the UNFCCC, have failed to recognize fully the mitigation value of native forest conservation. Our analyses provide evidence for decision-making about the circumstances under which forest management provides mitigation benefits.</p></div

Parameters describing carbon stocks and stock changes in the case study forest systems.

<p>AGB aboveground living biomass, TB total living biomass,</p><p>* model output, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s002" target="_blank">S2 Appendix</a></p><p>^(a) Parameter value used in the base case simulation,</p><p>^(b) range in values used in the sensitivity analysis</p><p>Parameters describing carbon stocks and stock changes in the case study forest systems.</p

Total carbon stock (tC ha^-1) in the harvested or conserved forest system in Mountain Ash forests, simulated over 20, 50 and 100 years and calculated using two equations for biomass accumulation rate (S2 Appendix S2.2.2), and with a wildfire (Fig E in S3 Appendix).

<p>Total carbon stock (tC ha^-1) in the harvested or conserved forest system in Mountain Ash forests, simulated over 20, 50 and 100 years and calculated using two equations for biomass accumulation rate (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s002" target="_blank">S2 Appendix</a> S2.2.2), and with a wildfire (Fig E in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s003" target="_blank">S3 Appendix</a>).</p

Carbon stocks and transfers in a forest and harvested wood products system.

<p>Boxes represent stocks of carbon, and arrows represent transfers between stocks with the process defined in italics.</p

Regional average carbon stocks simulated over 100 years in South Coast mixed native eucalypt forest.

<p>Simulations were run for the reference case of current harvested forest (A), and four scenarios of forest management; scenario (1) maximum forest harvest production (B), scenario (2a) conservation forest plus non-wood substitution (C), scenario (2b) conservation forest plus plantation substitution (D), and scenario (2c) conservation forest plus existing plantations (E). All biomass pools in the harvested forest system were included, both on- and off-site. Carbon stock in harvested forest included above-and below-ground living and dead biomass. Carbon stocks shown for pine and eucalypt plantations included forest biomass living and dead, wood and paper products and landfill.</p

Differences in simulated carbon stocks (tC ha^-1) as percentages of the total system carbon stock.

<p>Differences were calculated from use of minimum or maximum values of parameters listed in Tables B and C in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s003" target="_blank">S3 Appendix</a> in a simulation for 50 years in (A) mixed native eucalypt forest on the South Coast of NSW, and (B) Mountain Ash forest in the Central Highlands of Victoria.</p

Regional average carbon stocks simulated over 100 years in Mountain Ash forest.

<p>Simulations were run for the reference case of current harvested forest (A), and four scenarios of forest management; scenario (1) maximum forest harvest production (B), scenario (2a) conservation forest plus non-wood substitution (C), scenario (2b) conservation forest plus plantation substitution (D), and scenario (2c) conservation forest plus existing plantations (E). All biomass pools in the harvested forest system were included, both on- and off-site. Carbon stock in harvested forest included above-and below-ground living and dead biomass. Carbon stocks shown for pine and eucalypt plantations included the forest biomass living and dead, wood and paper products and landfill. Forest carbon accumulation rate was calculated using Equation (S2-3) in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s002" target="_blank">S2 Appendix</a>. See Fig D in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s003" target="_blank">S3 Appendix</a> for calculation using Equation (S2-4) in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640#pone.0139640.s002" target="_blank">S2 Appendix</a>.</p