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.

Forthcoming, 16 OctoberMore informationNumber of pages: 88

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.

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/m³ 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. Here, building up the forest carbon sink would be the better option. We conclude that it is vital to include the CSBF in GHG balances of wood products if the wood is extracted from forests. Only then can GHG balances provide political decision-makers and stakeholders in the wood sector with a complete picture of GHG emissions.

The transition from a fossil-based economy to a bioeconomy (BE) is crucial for sustainable production and consumption. Yet, growing demand for bio-based resources challenges sustainability, underscoring the need for indicator-based monitoring. Forests play a central role by providing carbon sequestration, timber, biodiversity, habitats, and other ecosystem services but are vulnerable to overuse and conflicting management goals. This study proposes a framework for indicator-based BE monitoring in the German forest sector, combining empirical data with forest growth models (FGMs) to reconcile resource use with ecosystem protection and to support policy development. The framework emphasizes ecological aspects and synergies among societal demands to optimize trade-offs between competing needs. Developed through literature review and expert consultations, the framework defines selection criteria ensuring concise, evidence-based indicators: they must (i) provide quantitative feedback on target achievement, (ii) draw on historical datasets, and (iii) be represented in FGMs for future projections. FGMs simulate interactions between management and ecological factors driving tree growth, mortality, disturbances, regeneration, and stand development. They track forest development via parameters assessing biomass, ecosystem state, and resilience. We identified 11 FGMs suitable for BE monitoring in Germany and propose five indicator groups: biomass carbon stocks, biodiversity, soil, water, and biomass extraction. Carbon and biomass indicators are well integrated into FGMs, while biodiversity indicators remain only partially represented. Soil indicators are hampered by database gaps and process simplifications. Water indicators focus on drought stress quantification and require high temporal resolution process representation and meteorological input for accurate soil-plant-atmosphere interactions. These challenges highlight the need for further FGM development to improve and standardize indicator representation for BE monitoring.