The global carbon neutrality challenge places a spotlight on forests as carbon sinks. However, greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of wood for material and energy use often reveal GHG emission savings in comparison with a non-wood reference. Is it thus better to increase wood production and use, or to conserve and expand the carbon stock in forests? GHG balances of wood products mostly ignore the dynamics of carbon storage in forests, which can be expressed as the carbon storage balance in forests (CSBF). For Germany, a CSBF of 0.25 to 1.15 t CO₂-eq. m⁻³ wood can be assumed. When the CSBF is integrated into the GHG balance, GHG mitigation substantially deteriorates and wood products may even turn into a GHG source, e.g., in the case of energy wood. In such cases, building up forest carbon stocks would be the better option. We conclude that it is vital to include the CSBF in GHG balances of wood products to assess the impacts of wood extraction from forests. Only then can GHG balances provide political decision makers and stakeholders in the wood sector with a complete picture of GHG emissions.

Footprints are powerful indicators for evaluating the impacts of a country’s bioeconomy on environmental goods, both domestic and abroad. We apply a hybrid approach combining a multi-regional input-output model and land use modelling to compute the agricultural land footprint (aLF). Furthermore, we added information on land-use change to the analysis and allocated land conversion to specific commodities. Using Germany as a case study, we show that the aLF abroad is 2.5 to 3 times larger compared to impacts within the country. When allocating land conversion of natural and semi-natural land-cover types in 2005 and 2010 to import increases by Germany, conversion rates were found to be 2.5 times higher than for the global average. Import increases to Germany slowed down in 2015 and 2020, reducing land conversion attributed to the German bioeconomy as well. Our results indicate that looking at a static import pattern is not sufficient to draw a realistic picture of the land footprint of a country. For a more detailed assessment that also considers temporal dynamics and impacts of biomass use and trade, our newly developed set of indicators also captures changes of import patterns over time. The case study shows that our enhanced land footprint provides clear and meaningful information for policymakers and other stakeholders.

By Rainer Luick, Klaus Hennenberg, Christoph Leuschner, Manfred Grossmann, Eckhard Jedicke, Nicolas Schoof & Thomas Waldenspuhl This article has also been published in German in Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 12/2021. Abstract There are heated