Mountain forest wood fuel supply chains: comparative studies between Norway and Italy

Abstract

Case studies of mountain forest wood fuel supply chains from Norway and Italy are presented and compared. Results from previous studies in which greenhouse gas emissions and costs were evaluated using life cycle assessment and cost analysis respectively, are compared. The supply chain is more mechanized in Norway than Italy. Steeper terrain and low road density partly explain the persistence of motor-manual felling in the Italian case. Mechanized forest harvesting can increase productivity and reduce costs, but generates more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than motor-manual harvesting. In both cases, the main sources of GHG emissions are truck transportation and chipping. The total emissions are 22.9 kg CO2/m3s.o.b. (Norway) and 13.2 kg CO2/m3s.o.b. (Italy). The Norwegian case has higher costs than the Italian one, 64 €/m3s.o.b. and 41 €/m3s.o.b. respectively, for the overall supply chain. The study shows that mountain forests constitute an interesting source for fuel biomass in both areas, but are a rather costly source, particularly in Norway. The study also exemplifies the care needed in transferring LCA results between regions and countries, particularly where forest biomass is involved.

Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forest Operations: a Review

“…For a specific species (hinoki cypress), the largest GHG emission values for the prefectures in the study was approximately 1.5 times higher than the lowest emissions. Fuel consumption proved to be the most relevant parameter in GHG emissions [72]. It contributed the most GHG emissions, while lubricants and maintenance had a rather small impact [40].…”

“…Different technologies, harvesting methods, levels of intensity and mechanization, and allocations of products can influence costs and productivity [72,74,91]. Zhang et al [40] highlighted that harvesting costs decrease with increasing removal intensity.…”

“…Zhang et al [40] highlighted that harvesting costs decrease with increasing removal intensity. Valente et al [72] found that mechanized operations could reduce costs and increase productivity but, due to a higher use of fossil fuel, generate more GHG emissions than motor-manual harvesting. In their study, comparing a Norwegian and an Italian case, the authors found that extraction by cable yarding and transportation by truck were the most expensive operations.…”

Adapting Chinese Forest Operations to Socio-Economic Developments: What is the Potential of Plantations for Strengthening Domestic Wood Supply?

“…The introduction of equipment, of whichever scale, will become necessary with commercial operations, as they need to achieve higher efficiency. Low mechanization involves less efficient logging operations but at the same time higher labour demand and costs [82]. The example of high turnover rates experienced during the mechanization of Canadian forest operations in the 1970s [83], shows that this can become a major challenge for Chinese operation managers, too, if it cannot be avoided by competitive wages and job security.…”

How Technology Can Improve the Efficiency of Excavator-Based Cable Harvesting for Potential Biomass Extraction—A Woody Productivity Resource and Cost Analysis for Ireland

“…He mentions how perhaps automated carriage movement could improve productivity by some 15%, but ultimately improved efficiency is determined by technology developments which also drives system productivity. More recently, Valente et al [21] looked into the environmental performance of cable systems in an effort to assess whether more wood (or biomass) can be extracted in line with the EU's energy policy of 20% reduction of GHG emissions and an increase of 20% in the use of renewable energy sources. Given that 60% of the total forest area in Europe is only harvested, it is estimated that this figure is much lower in the mountainous areas, where over one quarter of the European forests are based and thus, this could be a huge source of increased biomass harvested through cable log operations that has potentially otherwise gone un-recorded in resource assessment studies.…”