As part of the knowledge base developed within the EU project LAMASUS (deliverable D5.1) to quantify the climate impacts of land use management (LUM) changes, we present an ensemble of response functions that describe the effects of forest management de-intensification on forest biomass carbon stocks. These functions are supported by spatially explicit maps of model coefficients at a 0.5° (~50 km) resolution covering the European Union (EU27+UK, excluding overseas territories). The response functions were derived from simulations using the Global Forest Model (G4M), developed at IIASA (Kindermann et al., 2008; Gusti and Kindermann, 2011). They quantify the changes in biomass carbon stocks associated with transitions from intensively managed forests (classified as “Production forest”) to either near-natural forests (“Other, not harvested” and “Close to nature forests”) or “Multifunctional forests.” These LUM classes are consistent with the definitions provided in the LAMASUS Land Use Management Data Set (See et al., 2025, https://zenodo.org/records/15488011).The response functions have the form of following equation:BM(t) = BM0 + BMmax * (1 – exp(-t/τ))BM0 is the biomass under intensive use before conversion. BM is the biomass in kg C m-2 reached after t years after LUM conversion, BMmax is the biomass in kg C m-2 that could be reached by the year 2100, τ  is a parameter that determines the rate at which BMmax is approached. The table below lists the files from which the maps of each coefficient of the response function can be retrieved, separated by type of conversion and climate scenario.Table: List of files with coefficients for biomass carbon stock growth curves conversion of forest LUM class “Production forest” to near-natural forests (“Other, not harvested”,   “Close to nature forests”) or to “Multifunctional forests”.PeriodFile namesConversion to forest LUMs “Other, not harvested” or “Close to nature forests”HistoricalG4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm.ncFuture, SSP-RCP126G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm_ssp_rcp126.ncFuture, SSP-RCP370G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm_ssp_rcp370.ncConversion to forest LUM “Multifunctional forests”Future, SSP-RCP126G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_1p5RTmaxMAI_ssp_rcp126.ncFuture, SSP-RCP370G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_1p5RTmaxMAI_ssp_rcp370.ncReferences:Gusti, M. and G. Kindermann (2011). An approach to modeling landuse change and forest management on a global scale. SIMULTECH-2011. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands July 29 - 31 2011, SciTePress - Science and Technology Publications, Portugal.Kindermann, G. E., I. McCallum, S. Fritz and M. Obersteiner (2008). "A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics." Silva Fennica 42(3): 387-396.

As part of the knowledge base developed within the EU project LAMASUS (deliverable D5.1) to quantify the climate impacts of land use management (LUM) changes, we present an ensemble of response functions that describe the effects of forest management de-intensification on forest biomass carbon stocks. These functions are supported by spatially explicit maps of model coefficients at a 0.5° (~50 km) resolution covering the European Union (EU27+UK, excluding overseas territories). The response functions were derived from simulations using the Global Forest Model (G4M), developed at IIASA (Kindermann et al., 2008; Gusti and Kindermann, 2011). They quantify the changes in biomass carbon stocks associated with transitions from intensively managed forests (classified as “Production forest”) to either near-natural forests (“Other, not harvested” and “Close to nature forests”) or “Multifunctional forests.” These LUM classes are consistent with the definitions provided in the LAMASUS Land Use Management Data Set (See et al., 2025, https://zenodo.org/records/15488011).The response functions have the form of following equation:BM(t) = BM0 + BMmax * (1 – exp(-t/τ))BM0 is the biomass under intensive use before conversion. BM is the biomass in kg C m-2 reached after t years after LUM conversion, BMmax is the biomass in kg C m-2 that could be reached by the year 2100, τ  is a parameter that determines the rate at which BMmax is approached. The table below lists the files from which the maps of each coefficient of the response function can be retrieved, separated by type of conversion and climate scenario.Table: List of files with coefficients for biomass carbon stock growth curves conversion of forest LUM class “Production forest” to near-natural forests (“Other, not harvested”,   “Close to nature forests”) or to “Multifunctional forests”.PeriodFile namesConversion to forest LUMs “Other, not harvested” or “Close to nature forests”HistoricalG4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm.ncFuture, SSP-RCP126G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm_ssp_rcp126.ncFuture, SSP-RCP370G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_RTmaxBm_ssp_rcp370.ncConversion to forest LUM “Multifunctional forests”Future, SSP-RCP126G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_1p5RTmaxMAI_ssp_rcp126.ncFuture, SSP-RCP370G4M_BM_response_RTmaxMAI_1p5RTmaxMAI_ssp_rcp370.ncReferences:Gusti, M. and G. Kindermann (2011). An approach to modeling landuse change and forest management on a global scale. SIMULTECH-2011. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and Applications, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands July 29 - 31 2011, SciTePress - Science and Technology Publications, Portugal.Kindermann, G. E., I. McCallum, S. Fritz and M. Obersteiner (2008). "A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics." Silva Fennica 42(3): 387-396.

Supplement for CLEVER D7.2 deliverable including output data for the forest sector part figures. CLEVER D7.2 forest sector part analyzes wood-based bioeconomy and novel forest sector supply chains. Results show that bioeconomy can be combined to sustainable forestry, but this needs novel forest sector supply chain solutions such as forest plantation, non-woody biomass use for bioenergy, and/or circular economy. The record contains one readme file (readme_D72_ForestSupplyChains.docx) and one model output reporting csv file (CLEVER_D7.2_ForestSupplyChains_results.csv)

Supplement for CLEVER D7.2 deliverable including output data for the forest sector part figures. CLEVER D7.2 forest sector part analyzes wood-based bioeconomy and novel forest sector supply chains. Results show that bioeconomy can be combined to sustainable forestry, but this needs novel forest sector supply chain solutions such as forest plantation, non-woody biomass use for bioenergy, and/or circular economy. The record contains one readme file (readme_D72_ForestSupplyChains.docx) and one model output reporting csv file (CLEVER_D7.2_ForestSupplyChains_results.csv)

The repository contains the data and codes supporting the findings of the study: Climate targets in European timber-producing countries conflict with goals on forest ecosystem services and biodiversity. Abstract: The European Union (EU) set clear climate change mitigation targets to reach climate neutrality, accounting for forests and their woody biomass resources. We investigated the consequences of increased harvest demands resulting from EU climate targets. We analysed the impacts on national policy objectives for forest ecosystem services and biodiversity through empirical forest simulation and multi-objective optimization methods. We show that key European timber-producing countries – Finland, Sweden, Germany (Bavaria) – cannot fulfil the increased harvest demands linked to the ambitious 1.5°C target. Potentials for harvest increase only exists in the studied region Norway. However, focusing on EU climate targets conflicts with several national policies and causes adverse effects on multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity. We argue that the role of forests and their timber resources in achieving climate targets and societal decarbonization should not be overstated. Our study provides insight for other European countries challenged by conflicting policies and supports policymakers.

The repository contains the data and codes supporting the findings of the study: Climate targets in European timber-producing countries conflict with goals on forest ecosystem services and biodiversity, which can be found in the zip file "euclimate_vs_natpolicy-main.zip". Further, the repository includes the raw forest simulation data used as input for the multi-objective optimizations and the raw optimization outputs of each study region. The codes to run the national optimization can be retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6631109. Abstract: The European Union (EU) set clear climate change mitigation targets to reach climate neutrality, accounting for forests and their woody biomass resources. We investigated the consequences of increased harvest demands resulting from EU climate targets. We analysed the impacts on national policy objectives for forest ecosystem services and biodiversity through empirical forest simulation and multi-objective optimization methods. We show that key European timber-producing countries – Finland, Sweden, Germany (Bavaria) – cannot fulfil the increased harvest demands linked to the ambitious 1.5°C target. Potentials for harvest increase only exists in the studied region Norway. However, focusing on EU climate targets conflicts with several national policies and causes adverse effects on multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity. We argue that the role of forests and their timber resources in achieving climate targets and societal decarbonization should not be overstated. Our study provides insight for other European countries challenged by conflicting policies and supports policymakers.

The repository contains the data and codes supporting the findings of the study: Climate targets in European timber-producing countries conflict with goals on forest ecosystem services and biodiversity, including the raw forest simulation data used as input for the multi-objective optimizations and the raw optimization outputs of each study region. Abstract: The European Union (EU) set clear climate change mitigation targets to reach climate neutrality, accounting for forests and their woody biomass resources. We investigated the consequences of increased harvest demands resulting from EU climate targets. We analysed the impacts on national policy objectives for forest ecosystem services and biodiversity through empirical forest simulation and multi-objective optimization methods. We show that key European timber-producing countries – Finland, Sweden, Germany (Bavaria) – cannot fulfil the increased harvest demands linked to the ambitious 1.5°C target. Potentials for harvest increase only exists in the studied region Norway. However, focusing on EU climate targets conflicts with several national policies and causes adverse effects on multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity. We argue that the role of forests and their timber resources in achieving climate targets and societal decarbonization should not be overstated. Our study provides insight for other European countries challenged by conflicting policies and supports policymakers.

The repository contains the data and codes supporting the findings of the study: Climate targets in European timber-producing countries conflict with goals on forest ecosystem services and biodiversity, which can be found in the zip file "euclimate_vs_natpolicy-main.zip". Further, the repository includes the raw forest simulation data used as input for the multi-objective optimizations and the raw optimization outputs of each study region. The codes to run the national optimization can be retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6631109. Abstract: The European Union (EU) set clear climate change mitigation targets to reach climate neutrality, accounting for forests and their woody biomass resources. We investigated the consequences of increased harvest demands resulting from EU climate targets. We analysed the impacts on national policy objectives for forest ecosystem services and biodiversity through empirical forest simulation and multi-objective optimization methods. We show that key European timber-producing countries – Finland, Sweden, Germany (Bavaria) – cannot fulfil the increased harvest demands linked to the ambitious 1.5°C target. Potentials for harvest increase only exists in the studied region Norway. However, focusing on EU climate targets conflicts with several national policies and causes adverse effects on multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity. We argue that the role of forests and their timber resources in achieving climate targets and societal decarbonization should not be overstated. Our study provides insight for other European countries challenged by conflicting policies and supports policymakers.