Forests are central to the EU's climate neutrality strategy, currently offsetting ~9% of total greenhouse gas emissions and offering further mitigation potential through harvested wood products and the substitution effect. However, the climate benefit of the forest sector is influenced by multiple interacting factors, including forest management, climate change, wood-use strategies, and assumptions about substitution benefits, as well as the timing and fate of carbon across the forest ecosystem and technosphere. To evaluate these drivers, we used a coupled forest growth and a wood products model to simulate five different silvicultural strategies under three climate change scenarios, four wood use schemes, and five displacement factor decay pathways over a 285-year period (2015-2300), applied to a Pinus nigra forest in Italy, questioning the impact of these factors on climate mitigation potential of the forest sector. We assessed forest sector balance (FSB, net carbon exchange between forest system and atmosphere), radiative forcing from biogenic CO2 (RFbio), and mitigation efficiency (ME) - the proportion of sequestered carbon contributing to net climate benefit. Results showed that FSB and RFbio were "broadly" aligned, but ME varied with the magnitude and duration of biogenic emissions. The scenarios BIOE (bioenergy) and TM (modular cutting) achieved high FSB but showed lower ME due to concentrated or sustained emissions. WOOD and ADAPT yielded higher ME under SSP1-2.6, while several strategies (WOOD, ADAPT, TRANS) became net sources under SSP5-8.5 after 2200. Substitution benefits declined under degressive assumptions, reducing mitigation by up to 53% especially for high-harvest scenarios. FSB was primarily shaped by climate and management, secondly by substitution, however; wood-use strategies had no significant long-term effect provided they did not impact resource availability. Together, these findings underscore that effective forest-sector mitigation requires not only maximizing cumulative carbon stocks, but also minimizing the magnitude, timing, and atmospheric residence time of emissions while carefully considering the role of substitution benefits.
Boukhris et al. (Sat,) studied this question.