From clearcutting to continuous cover forestry: impacts on investment profitability, harvest, and carbon dynamics in Poland

Abstract

Improved forest management (IFM), particularly the transition of even-aged forests to continuous cover forestry (CCF), is gaining attention as a management approach that may contribute to climate change mitigation by enhancing forest carbon sequestration and maintaining soil carbon storage. CCF aims to maintain continuous tree cover over time by using selective harvesting and natural regeneration instead of clear-cutting (CC), and is promoted as a forest management method that enhances productivity, ecological, and social benefits. Using a Scots pine stand management in Poland, we evaluated the profitability, harvest rates, and carbon fluxes of CCF compared to traditional CC. We used discounted cash flow models to assess the potential benefits of transitioning even-aged Scots pine stands to a CCF regime. At the assumed 5% discount rate, CC management had higher Land Expectation Values (LEVs), while CCF had higher internal rates of return (IRR) for lower land acquisition prices of 8,000 EUR or less. For land prices ranging from 9,000 to 11,000 EUR, IRRs varied considerably depending on the age at which the stand was transitioned to CCF. Purchasing older forests, which then produced earlier harvest revenues, was more profitable. CC management consistently produced more wood per hectare than CCF, but since CCF had lower input costs, the costs per tonne of CO2e were similar between the two management regimes, as were the wood production costs. Our findings highlight important trade-offs, suggesting that while CCF may not always maximize wood yields, it can offer competitive financial performance under favorable land prices while simultaneously supporting climate mitigation objectives.

Citation

Chudy, R., Cubbage, F., McGinley, K., Siry, J., & Chudy, K. (2025). From clearcutting to continuous cover forestry: impacts on investment profitability, harvest, and carbon dynamics in Poland. Journal of Forest Business Research, 4(2), 126–153.