A. Relevance and sustainability context
A.1 Policy relevance
The harvest indicator is highly relevant for monitoring the forest-based bioeconomy, as it quantifies the amount of wood biomass mobilized and supplied to downstream value chains. It is particularly relevant for forest, climate, and bioeconomy policies, as well as for the wood-processing sector. The indicator is also directly linked to greenhouse gas reporting and harvested wood products accounting.
A.2 Sustainability and / or comparative evaluation options
The indicator should be interpreted together with indicators on harvest potential, gross increment, and wood demand. Important evaluation metrics include the harvest-to-increment ratio and comparisons between domestic demand and sustainable harvest potential. Additional bioeconomy-related benchmarks include harvested volume relative to forest sector gross value added (GVA), employment, total biomass use, or harvested volume per capita.
B. Data availability
B.1 Stage of development
It is an established indicator. Historical data are available, and the indicator is already used in monitoring activities. Future developments can be represented through projection and scenario studies.
B.2 Data sources
Historical data are based on the Einschlagsrückrechnung of the Thünen Institute. Future developments can be derived from the German Projection Report and additional scenario studies such as the DIFENs project (Dealing with Impacts on Forests under changing End-use demand, climate change, Natural disturbances and Policy goals).
B.3 Coverage over time and replicability
Historical data are available annually from 1995 to 2023. Scenario-based projections are available up to 2050 with annual resolution. The indicator can therefore support both retrospective monitoring and forward-looking assessments.
B.4 Coverage across scales and sectors; compatibility
The indicator is available for the German forestry sector at a national scale. Historical data can also be generated for federal states, although this requires integration of National Forest Inventory information. The indicator is compatible with national forest and climate reporting systems.
C. Considerations for operationalization
C.1 Feasibility: Fit for monitoring
The indicator is highly suitable for monitoring. Historical data are considered very robust, while future projections are subject to uncertainties associated with scenario assumptions and modelling approaches.
C.2 Institutions
Historical data are provided by the Thünen Institute. Future calculation and reporting could involve the Thünen Institute, the Öko-Institut, and other institutions depending on the selected scenario framework.#
C.3 Future prospects
The continuation of monitoring is considered highly likely. The indicator is already established and supported by regularly updated statistical sources and modelling activities.
C.4 Costs, considerations and reproducibility
Costs mainly arise from compiling statistical information, integrating scenario data, and developing graphical presentations. Data sources are well established and reproducible.
C.5 Potential for automation
Partial automation appears feasible. However, expert judgement will continue to be required for quality assurance, interpretation, and scenario evaluation.
C.6 Presentation options and breakdown / sub-indicator needs
The indicator can be presented as a time series and broken down by:
- harvest volume (m³ over bark / under bark),
- carbon content (t C),
- CO₂-equivalents,
- broadleaf and coniferous assortments,
- additional wood assortment categories, where these are relevant.
C.7 Potential for scenario integration
The indicator has a high potential for scenario integration. It is already used in scenario analyses and projection reports to evaluate future biomass mobilization pathways.
C.8 Interlinkages and alignment with other monitoring activities
The indicator is closely linked to greenhouse gas reporting, harvested wood product accounting, forest resource monitoring, and broader bioeconomy monitoring systems. It should be interpreted together with indicators on increment, growing stock, harvest potential, and wood utilization.
Further Comments:
The indicator can be reported in different physical units and should preferably be presented together with sustainability benchmarks such as harvest potential or harvest-to-increment ratios to allow meaningful interpretation within a bioeconomy context.