Forest carbon sink calculations to be repaired – all to get on the same line

In Sweden, forests bind tens of millions of tons of carbon dioxide, and at the same time Natural Resources Center (Luke) According to the models, Finnish forests became emission sources for carbon dioxide. The difference is partly explained by the fact that in Sweden the change in soil carbon stock is based on measurements and the so-called YASSO07 modeling in Finland.

Forest leaf (30.1. Why does Sweden measure, but Finland model the carbon stock of mineral countries? Why only differences in research methods can lead to major differences in soil carbon bonding, where researchers’ views are like night and day.

Luke researchers have been able to explain the difference between the measurement methods throughout the weekend and the early week explains the reasons for these differences. It is clear that both methods have their own pros and cons.

The differences are due, for example, to forest trees, handling, soil, drainage, climate and research methods. Things are difficult and difficult, as is common in nature research.

Indeed, political rushing is ridiculous when trying to blame the read in a matter where politicians themselves have given researchers bad cards.

Many people still remember what kind of battle was in Brussels in the corridors of the EU Parliament when Parliament had to decide on the LULUCF regulations on land use, land use and forestry regulation almost ten years ago. Compromises were made after the compromises.

In principle, the coal backs of forests and soil reached a common view that Member States handle the calculations on the same principles. However, the reality has been quite different.

Initially, Finland and Sweden’s capabilities in calculating forest emissions were better than many other Member States, but still differ from almost all Member States.

In addition to Finland, for example, soil modeling in Yasso is currently used only by Switzerland, Norway, Austria and Germany. Luke’s Research Manager Juha Mikolan In fact, according to all UN Member States, the soil inventories of the UN are different.

This indicates a major principle of LULUCF calculation. When the calculation models differ, the legislation related to the entire LULUCF, with its various threat rules, is questionable.

After all, every member’s country should be on the same line in the fact that their forests and soil emissions are calculated on the same principles and calculation models.

Now this is not the case. In Finland, billion costs have been flashed on several occasions on the basis of the LULUCF regulation, but how well are such views really?

For example, the much -spoken purchase of allowances from another Member State is completely unbelievable if soil inventories have not been made in the same way.

The least what can be done in the EU is to unify the Union’s calculation rules quickly to the same line. If and when lulucf is a problem, it’s a political problem.