Analysis values carbon sequestration and storage services in forests, indicating strong climate-smart opportunities.
Ecosystem services—the benefits humans derive from nature—are foundational to environmental sustainability and economic well-being, with carbon sequestration and storage standing out as critical regulating services in the fight against climate change. This study presents a comprehensive financial valuation of the carbon sequestration, storage and product substitution ecosystem services provided by the Hungarian forest-based sector. Using a multi-scenario framework, four complementary valuation concepts are assessed: total carbon storage (biomass, soil, and harvested wood products), annual net sequestration, emissions avoided through material and energy substitution, and marketable carbon value under voluntary carbon market (VCM) and EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) mechanisms. Data sources include the National Forestry Database, the Hungarian Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and national estimates on substitution effects and soil carbon stocks. The total carbon stock of Hungarian forests is estimated at 1289 million tons of CO2 eq, corresponding to a theoretical climate liability value of over EUR 64 billion. Annual sequestration is valued at approximately 380 million EUR/year, while avoided emissions contribute an additional 453 million EUR/year in mitigation benefits. A comparative analysis of two mutually exclusive crediting strategies—improved forest management projects (IFMs) avoiding final harvesting versus long-term carbon storage through the use of harvested wood products—reveals that intensified harvesting for durable wood use offers higher revenue potential (up to 90 million EUR/year) than non-harvesting IFM scenarios. These findings highlight the dual role of forests as both carbon sinks and sources of climate-smart materials and call for policy frameworks that integrate substitution benefits and long-term storage opportunities in support of effective climate and bioeconomy strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borovics et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: