1

Fig. 1. The regional division in the study and the selected biorefinery locations. For the region names, see Table 3.

2

Fig. 2. The consumption of forest chips in heat and CHP plants realized in 2015 and in the demand scenarios for 2030 assessed in this study.

Table 1. Assumed supply radius of a plant as a function of demand (Kurki et al. 2012).
Demand (kt) Supply radius (km)
≤ 1.3 30
≤ 4.2 60
≤ 33.6 100
≤ 73.5 150
> 73.5 200
Table 2. The assumptions of the balance scenarios. Scenarios: “2015” – Actual demand of forest chips in 2015; “TEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; “WEM” - estimate of demand in 2030 “With Existing Measures” from an impact analysis for the Finnish energy and climate strategy; “WAM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Additional Measures” from the impact analysis; “WAM+” – demand as in “WAM”, but potential of small trees higher; “WAM_Res100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only residues used in biorefining; “WAM_ST100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only small trees used in biorefining; “WAM_NS” – demand of stumps as in “WAM”, but only spruce stumps accepted. Potentials: “ST” – technical potential of small trees; “ST10.5” – technical potential of small trees with diameters below 10.5 cm at breast height; “ResBAU” – residue potential corresponding to realized harvesting level; “StuBAU” – stump potential corresponding to realized harvesting level; “ResMax” – residue potential corresponding to maximum sustainable removals; “StuMax” – stump potential corresponding to maximum sustainable removals.
Scenario Biomass assortment(s) considered Potential Shares of small trees and residues of biorefinery feedstock
2015 all ST10.5; ResBAU; StuBAU N/A
TEM all ST10.5; ResMax; StuMax N/A
WEM all ST10.5; ResMax; StuMax 50%/50%
WAM all ST10.5; ResMax; StuMax 50%/50%
WAM+ small trees ST 50%/50%
WAM_Res100 small trees, logging residues ST10.5; ResMax 0%/100%
WAM_ST100 small trees, logging residues ST10.5; ResMax 100%/0%
WAM_NS stumps StuMax (spruce only) N/A
3

Fig. 3. Technical harvesting potential of forest chips in Finland.

4

Fig. 4. Spatially explicit technical harvesting potentials of small trees (left), logging residues (centre), and stumps (right).

Table 3. Technical harvesting potentials by region (1000 t). “ST” – technical potential of small trees; “ST10.5” – technical potential of small trees with diameters below 10.5 cm at breast height; “ResBAU” – residue potential corresponding to realized harvesting level; “StuBAU” – stump potential corresponding to realized harvesting level; “ResMax” – residue potential corresponding to maximum sustainable removals; “StuMax” – stump potential corresponding to maximum sustainable removals.
Region nr Region ST10.5 ST ResBAU ResMax StuBAU StuMax
1 Åland 3 6 16 24 18 24
2 Uusimaa 37 52 129 221 140 212
3 Lounais-Suomi 84 120 188 358 226 375
4 Häme 43 70 222 294 249 296
5 Kaakkois-Suomi 62 91 212 280 235 298
6 Pirkanmaa 68 104 198 323 220 331
7 Etelä-Savo 115 184 298 424 324 442
8 Ostrobothnia 55 86 64 144 69 141
9 South and Central Ostrobothnia 109 168 144 243 159 259
10 Central Finland 104 166 286 422 306 454
11 Pohjois-Savo 137 217 294 433 300 439
12 North Karelia 120 183 223 365 236 375
13 Kainuu 141 269 175 285 180 278
14 North Ostrobothnia 217 402 262 414 238 385
15 Lapland 343 658 163 382 176 381
Total 1638 2775 2874 4611 3077 4689
5

Fig. 5. Spatially explicit demand for small trees, logging residues, and stumps according to the scenario TEM in 2030.

Table 4. Forest chip balance of small trees in the basic and sensitivity scenarios by region (1000 t). “2015” – Actual demand of forest chips in 2015; “TEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; “WEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Existing Measures” from an impact analysis for the Finnish energy and climate strategy; “WAM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Additional Measures” from the impact analysis; “WAM+” – demand as in “WAM”, but potential of small trees higher; “WAM_Res100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only residues used in biorefining; “WAM_ST100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only small trees used in biorefining.
Region nr Region 2015 TEM WEM WAM WAM+ WAM_Res100 WAM_ST100
1 Åland -1 -3 -2 -2 1 -2 -2
2 Uusimaa -85 -188 -147 -136 -113 -132 -141
3 Lounais-Suomi -56 -245 -202 -179 -132 -168 -191
4 Häme -70 -153 -134 -119 -100 -110 -128
5 Kaakkois-Suomi -7 -60 -53 -45 -13 -31 -59
6 Pirkanmaa -78 -214 -200 -178 -139 -158 -199
7 Etelä-Savo -24 -95 -81 -68 0 -48 -87
8 Ostrobothnia -17 -54 -49 -43 -12 -32 -54
9 South and Central Ostrobothnia -37 -124 -111 -99 -32 -80 -118
10 Central Finland -60 -146 -139 -119 -56 -95 -142
11 Pohjois-Savo 31 -27 -36 -25 57 3 -53
12 North Karelia 51 12 4 11 78 33 -10
13 Kainuu 100 70 78 58 185 84 32
14 North Ostrobothnia 74 -36 -23 -144 49 27 -316
15 Lapland 182 103 77 -231 98 139 -601
Total 1 -1159 -1019 -1320 -130 -571 -2069
6

Fig. 6. Forest chip balance of small trees in 2015 and according to the scenarios TEM, WEM, and WAM.

Table 5. Forest chip balance of logging residues in the basic and sensitivity scenarios by region (1000 t). “2015” – Actual demand of forest chips in 2015; “TEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; “WEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Existing Measures” from an impact analysis for the Finnish energy and climate strategy; “WAM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Additional Measures” from the impact analysis; “WAM_Res100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only residues used in biorefining; “WAM_ST100” – demand as in “WAM”, but only small trees used in biorefining.
Region nr Region 2015 TEM WEM WAM WAM_Res100 WAM_ST100
1 Åland 7 11 13 14 14 14
2 Uusimaa 15 -34 14 26 21 31
3 Lounais-Suomi 61 50 95 115 105 126
4 Häme 87 36 63 82 70 94
5 Kaakkois-Suomi 115 101 112 127 113 142
6 Pirkanmaa 98 103 111 127 106 148
7 Etelä-Savo 180 209 230 250 231 268
8 Ostrobothnia 27 83 84 87 75 98
9 South and Central Ostrobothnia 86 154 157 163 148 178
10 Central Finland 174 230 233 252 228 277
11 Pohjois-Savo 205 273 270 281 252 310
12 North Karelia 168 261 266 274 254 294
13 Kainuu 158 242 248 227 201 252
14 North Ostrobothnia 211 301 284 95 -139 329
15 Lapland 153 350 316 53 -254 361
Total 1746 2371 2496 2173 1425 2921
7

Fig. 7. Forest chip balance of logging residues in 2015 and according to the scenarios TEM, WEM, and WAM.

Table 6. Forest chip balance of stumps in the basic and sensitivity scenarios by region (1000 t). “2015” – Actual demand of forest chips in 2015; “TEM” – estimate of demand in 2030 from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment; “WEM” - estimate of demand in 2030 “With Existing Measures” from an impact analysis for the Finnish energy and climate strategy; “WAM” – estimate of demand in 2030 “With Additional Measures” from the impact analysis; “WAM_NS” – demand of stumps as in “WAM”, but only spruce stumps accepted.
Region nr Region 2015 TEM WEM WAM WAM_NS
1 Åland 17 22 22 23 10
2 Uusimaa 120 157 176 179 126
3 Lounais-Suomi 191 291 314 319 185
4 Häme 209 235 248 252 197
5 Kaakkois-Suomi 200 248 257 262 163
6 Pirkanmaa 181 265 277 280 191
7 Etelä-Savo 286 395 404 411 265
8 Ostrobothnia 47 111 117 119 68
9 South and Central Ostrobothnia 122 210 218 223 83
10 Central Finland 265 387 398 407 250
11 Pohjois-Savo 271 403 412 414 292
12 North Karelia 218 345 350 352 178
13 Kainuu 159 252 256 255 80
14 North Ostrobothnia 207 345 351 355 112
15 Lapland 159 358 360 361 92
Total 2653 4023 4160 4213 2291
8

Fig. 8. Forest chip balance of stumps in 2015 and according to the scenario WAM. The maps of the scenarios TEM and WEM do not noticeably differ from the one of the scenario WAM and are, thus, not shown.