EU mitigation potential of harvested wood products

Pilli, Roberto; Fiorese, Giulia; Grassi, Giacomo

doi:10.1186/s13021-015-0016-7

Carbon Balance and Management

Table 1 Activity data analysis: for 28 EU countries

From: EU mitigation potential of harvested wood products

Countries	A. FAOSTAT	B. Specific data sources in comparison with FAOSTAT				C. Possible explanations for differences between A and B	D. Corr. factors
	Available since	FRA CR	NIR	NFI	FMRL
Austria	1961	=	↑	X	↑	Bark fraction	1.15
Belgium	2000	↓	↓		↓	Accounting methods	-
Bulgaria	1961	=			=		-
Croatia	1992	X			↑	Forest residues & bark	1.10
Cyprus	N. A.	X					-
Czech Rep	1993	=	X		↑	Forest residues & bark	1.10
Denmark	1961	=			X	Forest residues	-
Estonia	1992	X	=¹		=¹	Forest residues, bark & other	1.10
Finland	1961	↑	↑		↑	Forest residues, bark & other	1.10
France	1961	=	↓		=		-
Germany	1961	↑	=		↑	Forest residues, bark & other	1.44²
Greece	2007	↑			↑	Bark fraction	1.15
Hungary	1961	X	↑		↑	Bark fraction & forest residues	1.20³
Ireland	1961	X			↑	Bark fraction	1.10
Italy	1961	=		X	↑	Forest residues, bark & other	1.57⁴
Latvia	1992	X	↓		↓	Bark fraction	1.12
Lithuania	1992	X			↑	Bark fraction	1.12
Luxemb.	2000	=			↑		-
Malta	N. A.	X
Netherlands	1961	X			↑	Bark fraction	1.15-1.18
Poland	1961	↑			=	Bark fraction	1.20
Portugal	1961	↑			=	Bark fraction	1.25-1.18
Romania	1961	=	↑		↑	General CF	1.23⁵
Slovakia	1993	X	=		=	Bark fraction	1.10-1.12
Slovenia	1993	X			↑	Bark fraction	1.17-1.13
Spain	1961	↑			↑		1.10
Sweden	1961	↑			↑	Bark fraction & forest residues	1.14
UK	1961	X			↑	Bark fraction	1.14-1.12

The table reports: A. The first year from which FAOSTAT data are available; B. the additional data sources considered by this study, including: the 2010 Forest Resource Assessment country’s report (FRA CR), the 2013 National Inventory Reports (NIR), the last National Forest Inventory (NFI, when public available) and the Submission for Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL).
Symbols highlight if the amount of harvest reported by these specific data sources are, on average: equal (=), higher (↑), lower (↓) or not comparable (X, because of different time scales or other reasons) as compared to the FAOSTAT data. C. Possible differences between FAOSTAT and the other specific data sources. D. The correction factors applied to the original FAOSTAT data, mostly based on a correction for bark. The bark’s correction factor (based on data from the literature, when available at country level) was applied when, comparing FAOSTAT data with other sources (mainly the 2010 FRA Country Report), we argued that the volume reported by original FAOSTAT data were under-bark.
¹the NIR 2013 reports the same values reported by FAOSTAT since 2003.
²average general correction factor (accounting for bark and other corrections) applied to original FAOSTAT data from 2000 to 2012; the CF varied year by year, assuming that the figures reported by the Submission for FMRL represent the correct estimates (Joachim Rock, pers. com).
³bark’s CF applied only to the industrial roundwood compartment.
⁴average general correction factor (accounting for bark, forest residues and other corrections, suggested by [28] and by [23].
⁵average general correction factor suggested by NIR 2013 [28].

Back to article page

ISSN: 1750-0680

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com