Development of energy and material use of roundwood by wood type

A. Relevance and sustainability context

A.1 Policy relevance

The indicator measures the development of the energy and material use of roundwood by wood type expressed as shares of the overall roundwood use. The indicator can describe the developments and efforts to increase the material use of wood.

German policy relevance

  • Charter for Wood 2.0 (Charta für Holz 2.0) – BMLEH: Increase climate-friendly and sustainable use of wood, particularly through material applications such as timber construction and wood-based products.
  • National Circular Economy Strategy (Nationale Kreislaufwirtschaftsstrategie, NKWS) – BMUKN: Promotes resource conservation, circular material flows, and higher-value use of renewable resources. If more wood is used for material applications, circularity is increasingly supported.
  • Climate policy framework (Federal Climate Action Act and related measures) – BMUKN / BMWE / BMLEH: Wood products contribute through carbon storage and substitution of emission-intensive materials.

European Union policy relevance

  • Renewable Energy Directive (RED III, Directive (EU) 2023/2413): The indicator supports monitoring whether woody biomass is being diverted from material uses towards energy use and whether the principle of cascading use of biomass is being respected.
  • EU Bioeconomy Strategy: The indicator is relevant for tracking whether woody biomass contributes to a circular, value-added bioeconomy through material applications.

A.2 Sustainability and / or comparative evaluation options

The indicator describes the general development towards an increased use of woody biomass for material purposes, which supports the cascading principle of woody biomass. If increasing shares of woody biomass are used for energy purposes, this indicator can also function as an early warning system for unwanted developments. A comparative evaluation is technically possible but limited; however, the respective data sources of woody biomass use for the EU or other EU countries (e.g. Wood Resource Balance) entail methodological differences (e.g. private energy use of wood are often underestimated).

B. Data availability

B.1 Stage of development

Established indicator, since the reporting of the relevant data is well established and is part of long-term and regularly updated initiatives by Thünen Institute.

B.2 Data sources

Fellings and use of roundwood: https://www.thuenen.de/en/institutes/forestry/figures-facts/holzeinschlag-und-rohholzverwendung.

B.3 Coverage over time and replicability

The data is available from 1995 until 2024. There is an annual reporting by Thünen Institute. Hence, the indicator can be updated yearly.

B.4 Coverage across scales and sectors; compatibility

Coverage at national scale. Thünen Institute is already in charge of wood use reporting at national and international scale (e.g. Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) and Joint Wood Energy Enquiry (JWEE)).

C. Considerations for operationalization

C.1 Feasibility: Fit for monitoring

The indicator is very fit for monitoring (methodologically sound, reliable, and fit for bioeconomy monitoring).

C.2 Institutions

Thünen Institute

C.3 Future prospects

Indicator ready. Wood Resource Monitoring will be continued.

C.4 Costs, considerations and reproducibility

There is a conceivable interest in linking the data source to the bioeconomy monitoring.

C.5 Potential for automation

Medium: Thünen Institute provides the relevant data as pdf and excel files.

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

The indicator can show the historic relative trend developments of roundwood use for material and energy purposes, divided by the type of wood. The underlying data can be further sub-divided by material and energy use sub-sectors.

C.7 Potential for scenario integration

There is a potential for scenario integration in bioeconomy scenarios and modelling, e.g. using past trends (status quo and future goals).

C.8 Interlinkages and alignment with other monitoring activities

Interlinkages and alignment possible within the EU biomass flow monitoring. https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOMASS_FLOWS/ 

 

Theme: Biomass production and use
Sub-categories: Forestry
Tier: I
Development stage: Established
Robustness: Very Robust
Source: DBFZ based on Thünen Institute

Legend

Tier

Tier I describes the 30 core, priority indicators defined by the project that are highly relevant to represent a specific thematic area and which together with other Tier I indicators forms a systemic perspective of the various risks, opportunities and trade-offs within the Bioeconomy.

Tier II describes explanatory indicators that are of high priority and help to provide more specific information on trends within specific thematic areas.

Stage of development

Established:
Indicators which are already reported in other official monitoring systems

Semi-established:
Indicators which are developed by e.g. federal research institutes as part of long-term and regularly updated initiatives

New: 
Indicators not previously reported in an official capacity, but well established through research projects

Developing: 
Indicators under development with some reporting in new state-of-the research projects, but not subject to multiple years of revision and replication

Future: 
Indicator gaps requiring research for possible future integration

Robustness

Very robust:
methodologically sound, reliable, and fit for bioeconomy monitoring

Robust:
fit, but with acceptable uncertainty and/or potential challenges

Sufficient:
possibly fit, but with foreseeable challenges

Weak:
currently unfit, but short-term potential

Insufficient:
currently unfit, but with long-term potential