Timber footprint and domestic timber harvest

A. Relevance and sustainability context

A.1 Policy relevance

Environmental footprints help to uncover the impacts of German consumption that are “hidden” by global trade and the spatial distance to the point of production. They also allow comparisons between countries on a per capita basis. In this sense, specific footprints deliver information on the distribution of specific global environmental burden, in particular to provide quanti­tative indicators underpinning discussions of responsibility, overconsumption and fair shares. For the German bioeconomy, the driving question is: to what extent is biomass from forestry required for national production and consumption.

The timber footprint quantifies how much roundwood must be extracted worldwide to cover the German consumption of wood-based products. It includes all quantities of roundwood (industrial roundwood, wood fuel) in cubic meters used for domestic consumption.

The indicator is of interest to environmental and agricultural ministries at a federal level. It is a sustainability indicator for the bioeconomy and the green transition.

A.2 Sustainability and / or comparative evaluation options

Different types of comparisons help put the scale of German footprints into perspective. That said, a target range for quantifying sustainable consumption levels requires society-wide discourse, prioritisation, accept­ance and decision making, in light of best available scientific evidence. Multiple types of comparisons can be made, including:

• Degree of self-sufficiency by comparing German primary timber production and the timber footprint: If the footprint exceeds domestic extraction, Germany is a net importer of primary timber. It can also be compared to estimates of sustainable timber supply within Germany, to depict whether demand can be met nationally or whether imports are required.
• International comparisons are also possible by comparing the German timber footprint with the global average or footprints from other countries as well as with a safe and equitable global benchmark--depicting e.g. fair shares of sustainable supply estimates--to show whether national consumption is contributing to potential planetary overshoot.
• The timber footprint can also be calculated for all other countries and the global level with the same database and approach. This ensures international comparability.

B. Data availability

B.1 Stage of development

It is a semi-established indicator / new indicator because while the application to the bioeconomy is new to official monitoring (but established in projects; similar indicators are published by Destatis and EU bioeconomy monitoring building on UNEP, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en

B.2 Data sources

GLORIA v.60 (https://ielab.info/labs/ielab-gloria) for the MRIO (multi-regional input-output)-based assessment of material flows.

FAOSTAT (https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO) for addition, evaluation and update of satellite data in the GLORIA database on roundwood extraction.

B.3 Coverage over time and replicability

For the time range 2000-2024, annual data is available. Replicability is possible with GLORIA v.60 database plus some additional sources plus script from GWS. About every to every second year, the underlying GLORIA database is updated. Since the relations don't change significantly that quickly, an update every 2-4 years should be sufficient.

B.4 Coverage across scales and sectors; compatibility

Breakdown countries/regions (origin of the roundwood) is possible.

C. Considerations for operationalization

C.1 Feasibility: Fit for monitoring

The indicator is fit for monitoring. It has been included in different Bioeconomy Monitoring Reports (2024, 2021).

C.2 Institutions

GWS

C.3 Future prospects

GWS can update the indicator quite easily once the GLORIA database is updated.

C.4 Costs, considerations and reproducibility

Could be updated together with other footprint indicators (timber, wild fish, climate) within 2-3 person months by GWS.

C.5 Potential for automation

Semi-automation might be feasible, but considerable expert input will remain necessary.

C.6 Presentation options and breakdown / sub-indicator needs

By countries/regions (origin of roundwood) and economic sectors.

C.7 Potential for scenario integration

Has already been included in scenarios for the Bioeconomy Monitoring Report (2024).

C.8 Interlinkages and alignment with other monitoring activities

Other indicators such as agriculture biomass footprint, wild fish footprint and climate footprint are calculated with the same database.

Further Comments:

1. The timber footprint in our monitoring directly applies extraction data in cubic metres and refrains from the application of conversion factors to units of weight. Therefore the footprint (RMC) results from GWS/SYMOBIO are not directly comparable with respective indicator assessments in tonnes.
2. Significant differences in results between our MRIO (multi-regional input-output) approach (similar to UNEP) and Destatis figures.
3. In the Bioeconomy Monitoring Report we assessed two indicators: the (consumption and investment) footprint (= RMC concept) and the footprint including also material use for exports (= RMI-concept). This can be calculated with the same database and delivers extra information on the effects of the German bioeconomy on exports.
4. On behalf of Eurostat the ifeu Institute is currently updating the material flow indicator assessments for the EU. This new assessment will apply the same methods as SYMOBIO/GWS but will be based on a different database (FIGARO + extensions).