Next Article in Journal
What Factors Influence Consumers to Buy Green Products? An Analysis through the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability Framework and Consumer Awareness
Previous Article in Journal
Advancements in Exploiting Sporosarcina pasteurii as Sustainable Construction Material: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 18
10.3390/su151813871
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development

by
Julija Konstantinavičienė
1,2
1
Faculty of Bioeconomy Development, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Liepų str. 1, Girionys, 53101 Kaunas, Lithuania
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13871; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813871
Submission received: 14 August 2023 / Revised: 8 September 2023 / Accepted: 15 September 2023 / Published: 18 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Bioeconomy of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Forest wood biomass is one of the basic renewable resources used in the bioeconomy as a raw material for industrial products and fuel. The forest also plays an important role in the global carbon cycle. The increasing demand for wood biomass due to the growing population, as well as the required strategies to face climate change, force us to look at the use of forest wood biomass from a different angle. The European Commission has made a decision about the European Green Deal strategy. The new EU Forestry Strategy, as an element of the European Green Deal, promotes the sustainable use of wood-based resources. Therefore, it is important to know what is the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass and how it can be assessed. This study aimed to assess the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development in the European Union. Five estimates were applied, the self-sufficiency ratio, imports-dependence ratio, logging residues rate, recovery rate, and the ratio between annual fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass. The findings indicate that the self-sufficiency in primary wood biomass is quite high, and the ratio between annual fellings and net annual increment of wood biomass is sustainable in total in the EU. However, in separate countries, there are opportunities to increase domestic fuelwood potential and reduce fuelwood imports by using logging residues. The basic idea is that the biomass potential of forest wood has more sustainable use opportunities. This study can provide insight for political direction into how to increase self-sufficiency in wood biomass and maintain a balance between harvesting and the increment of wood biomass at the same time. Future research on the potential of forest wood biomass should consider the distribution potential by countries and counties. The principal conclusions of this study are important for the development of a sustainable bioeconomy and the need to sustainably use the potential of forest wood biomass.

1. Introduction

The bioeconomy as part of the economy involves the sustainable extraction and use of biological resources ((i.e., diverse application (the processing of biomass into food, feed, materials, value-added products, and biofuels) and subsequent reuse). The composition of the bioeconomy varies by sectors, such as agriculture, fishing, and forestry. In the forestry-sector-based bioeconomy, the extraction of wood biomass for both industrial wood and fuelwood makes up almost 20 wt.% of the total biomass extraction in the EU. This has great potential; therefore, wood biomass has very important potential for bioeconomy development. About 1.6 billion people in the world depend on forests for different reasons, i.e., food, fuel, homes, income, and medicaments (more than a quarter of modern medicines originate from tropical forests) [1]. The global demand for biomass, including wood biomass, is increasing [2,3,4]. At the same time, ecological pressure is increasing, because the climate is changing. The Green Deal was a reaction to the climate crisis and European Commission made legally binding, with a target of reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050 [5]. One of the main elements of the European Green Deal is the new EU forest strategy for 2030. The new EU forest strategy [6] emphasises the role of the sustainable use of wood-based resources in implementing the EU’s climate change goals. Forests play an important role in the global carbon cycle. In addition, when transforming wood biomass into long-life-cycle-wood-based products, the carbon removal period is long as well. Short-life-cycle products also have an important role in substituting for fossil fuels. Cascading and circular economy principles are especially crucial, i.e., when the priority should be on using wood for industrial production, and only unsuitable wood is used for energy production; it is also achieving the reusing and recycling of all wood-based products.
The forest-based sector is a part of the solution to global challenges [4], and forests have the potential to be the catalyser for ecological–economic synergies [3]. There are opportunities to better use wood biomass to face climate change and achieve sustainable development of the bioeconomy [3]. According to 2020 FAOSTAT data, the total forest area is 4059 × 106 ha, i.e., 31% of the Earth’s land surface, and 159 × 106 ha in the European Union (EU), i.e., 38% of the total land area. The constantly growing demand for wood biomass in Europe and the world and, in addition, the increasing need for regulation (e.g., CO2 storage) and support services (e.g., biodiversity conservation) of forest ecosystems lead to various studies on the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development in various scientific disciplines.
Karjalainen et al. [7] analysed the potential of forest wood biomass for fuel as the sum of roundwood balance (difference between net annual increment and fellings) and logging residues. The estimation of the roundwood balance is based on data from UN-ECE/FAO Forest Resources Assessment report. Karjalainen et al. [7] describe logging residues as biomass that is felled but not removed from the stand for utilisation and calculate this as the theoretical potential of all logging residues, based on percentage rate on literature sources. Hetsch [8] calculated the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass as the current use potential, based on FAO data, and as the additional potential, based on the net annual increment of the forest reported based on the SOEF (State of Europe Forests). This author used the following formula: AD = (NAI − F) × (1 − BF) × (1 − HL), where AD—additional potential, NAI—net annual increment, F—fellings, BF—bark factor (12%), and HL—harvest losses (10%). This author calculates similarly to Karjalainen et al. [7] but does not include the logging residues in the sustainable potential of wood biomass, because Hetsch [8] calculates the additional potential only for stemwood.
In another study [9], the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass was assessed only for energy needs. This study is based on Switzerland’s National Forest Inventory data, and the authors state that this potential consists of wood, which is not used for the roundwood industry and therefore is suitable as fuelwood (i.e., 38% of the harvested wood) and industrial wood residues. In other studies [10], the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass was assessed in 39 European countries for all needs (not just for energy) based on UNECE-FAO data. Verkerk et al. [10] state the conclusions about the unused potential of forest wood biomass, which have to be interpreted with caution; however, in fact, the potential for forest wood biomass could be more mobilised as compared to the currently statistically reported utilisation. Jekayinfa et al. [11] investigated the potential resources for biomass energy, including the potential of forest wood biomass. This analysis was based on FAOSTAT data and included wood fuel, charcoal, and industrial wood residues. Thees et al. [12] calculated the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass for fuel as a total annual wood increment, excluding wood from natural forest reserves, protected forests, deadwood, and forestry logging residues. The review of Kumar et al. [13] presented a systematic assessment of the availability and utilisation of the potential of forest wood biomass in Sweden based on Swedish Forest Industries Federation data. These authors’ study focused on forest wood biomass for traditional industrial uses, i.e., for sawnwood and wood for pulp and paper production; therefore, this assessment is limited to the wood industry.
Wieruszewski and Mydlarz [14] reviewed the latest literature sources on the bioenergy potential and indicated that the potential of bioenergy is increasing in agreement with the global perspective of energy production. In total, there are three main types of wood biomass sources for energy, i.e., (1) woodfuel, (2) logging residues, and (3) all by-products and waste generated during the wood industry process. However, in Wieruszewski and Mydlarz’s [14] study logging residues as part of the energy potential were not analysed. This study is based on two methods, research on forest biomass flows and the five analyses of the Wood Resource Balance (WRB), and makes use of data from National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs), Joint Wood Energy Inquiry (JWEE), and Eurostat data. Other authors [15] analysed only the third type of the wood biomass source for energy, i.e., wood industry processing residues, based on existing statistical data.
Many of these studies [7,9,11,12,14,15] focus on the analysis of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass only for fuel needs, and some other studies [8,13] assess the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass only for industrial products. Verkerk et al. [10] analysed the potential (both for industry and fuel needs) and estimated the theoretical amount of biomass that could be potentially available and combined this estimate with a set of environmental and technical constraints, which reduced the amount of wood available biomass. The difference between Verkerk et al. [10] and the present work is the assessment of the potential of forest wood biomass through material flows to determine the actual used potential, then estimating the unused potential and connecting with the assessment of the balance of fellings and the increment of forest wood biomass. The advantage of the present study is the analysis of the wood potential for both industry and energy needs, and the analysis includes used potential (extracted wood biomass), unused potential (logging residues) of primary forest wood biomass, and the ratio between fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass. The present study tries to discover connections in this complex system in terms of sustainable development. The self-sufficiency ratio and imports-dependence ratio are used to evaluate the used potential, and the logging residues rate and recovery rate are used to evaluate the unused potential. The aim of the present study is to assess the potential of forest wood biomass for energy, as well as for industry needs, in terms of sustainable development in the EU. To achieve this goal, five measures were adopted, i.e., (1) the self-sufficiency ratio, (2) the imports-dependence ratio, (3) the logging residues ratio, (4) the logging residues recovery ratio, and (5) the ratio of annual fellings and the net annual increment of wood biomass. Data from economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFAs) about roundwood in the EU countries and from Eurostat were used. The significant mission of this study is to reveal opportunities for the sustainable potential of wood biomass.

2. Materials and Methods

This section explains the measures applied for the estimation of the potential of wood biomass potential within the EU countries.

2.1. Assessment of Self-Sufficiency and Imports Dependence on Wood Biomass

The concept of self-sufficiency, when the country is able to meet all domestic needs, is often used in the context of food, i.e., for the analysis of agricultural and food systems [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Most researchers state that self-sufficiency can ensure domestic social and economic stability. Baer-Nawrocka and Sadowski [19] note that international trade contributes to food security in countries that do not demonstrate high food production intensity. Kaufmann et al. [23] indicate that international trade is a crucial hedge against food insecurity. Noorollahi et al. [24] and Vijay et al. [25] analysed biomass-based energy self-sufficiency in the agricultural sector.
Godenau et al. [21] noted that food self-sufficiency is the main factor when it comes to evaluating food availability. The same can be said about the forestry sector, i.e., forest wood biomass self-sufficiency is an indicator that shows the potential of forest wood biomass and the availability of this potential. However, investigations about self-sufficiency in the forest sector are rare in the scientific literature.
Proxy indicators, such as the self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) and imports-dependence ratio (IDR), can be used to assess the potential of wood biomass in the country. The self-sufficiency ratio of wood biomass shows the degree of the country’s ability to independently supply the domestic economy with wood biomass. This is a proxy indicator, which depends on the domestic extraction and domestic consumption of wood biomass in the country. The domestic extraction (DE) of wood biomass in EW-MFAs is the total amount of roundwood for further processing in the economy. Roundwood extraction includes timber (industrial roundwood) and fuelwood extractions [26,27] (Figure 1).
The domestic consumption (DC) of wood biomass is the total amount of roundwood actually consumed domestically and it is calculated as the sum of domestic extraction (DE) plus physical imports (IMPs) minus physical exports (EXPs) of roundwood [26,27]. The direct input (DI) of wood biomass is calculated as the sum of domestic extraction (DE) plus physical imports (IMP) of wood biomass. SSR is calculated using the following formula:
SSR = (DE × 100%)/DC
An SSR exceeding 100% shows that the country extracts more wood biomass than it consumes for domestic needs and exports this surplus. In contrast, an SSR of less than 100% shows that the wood biomass extraction in the country is lower than the demand in the domestic market, and in order to meet all domestic needs, wood biomass must be imported.
The dependency of the country’s economy on the imports ratio (IDR) of wood biomass is expressed by the following formula:
IDR = (IMP × 100%)/DI
A higher value of the IDR indicator means greater dependency on wood biomass imports. If the IDR is less than 50%, the country meets more of its domestic needs with domestic wood biomass resources, and if the IDR is greater than 50%, wood biomass used in the country is mostly imported.
In this study, the self-sufficiency ratio and imports-dependence ratio in wood biomass are calculated based on economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFAs). It is noted that EW-MFAs show only used extractions of roundwood [26,27].

2.2. Assessment of Logging Residues

An assessment of the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development must be based on the assessment of the total potential of forest wood biomass, including logging residues that were not collected but could have been collected and used.
Forestry logging operations always generate logging residues. Logging residues are wood left in the forest after logging operations (after industrial roundwood and fuelwood extractions). These residues generally include branches, leaves, stumps, roots, tops, bark, and unmerchantable stem wood [30]. By Pottie and Guimier’s [31] definition, wood logging residues include unmerchantable topwood, unmerchantable branches, unmerchantable stem pieces, breakages, stump wood, and roots. According to Spinelli et al. [32,33], this definition is fundamental for harvest residues, which have still been unsurpassed for almost 40 years. Economy-wide material flow accounts (EW-MFAs) record only extractions of materials used in forestry, i.e., total roundwood:industrial roundwood and fuelwood (Figure 1). However, in practice, there are both used and unused extractions [26,27]. “Unused” flows are materials that are extracted from the environment without the intention of using them, for example, the “unused” part of felling in forestry [26], i.e., logging residues. According to the wood accounting rules [34], logging residues are excluded from roundwood statistics, because logging residues are not roundwood. Notably enough, unremoved wood biomass (branches, root-stock, etc.), i.e., felling minus removal, is not accounted for in EW-MFAs [35]. This is unused extraction, but at the same time, these residues are part of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass. Logging residues can be used as fuel, fodder, fertiliser, fibre, feedstock, and further purposes [36]. Sometimes, the “unused extraction” is called “hidden flows” [26]. According to Krausmann et al. [37], total biomass assignment is the sum of used and unused biomass extraction. The amount of logging residues is difficult to measure; therefore, there is a need to search for a tool to estimate it [38]. They are distinguished as follows: (1) the rate of logging residues (RLR), i.e., the amount of logging residues from total roundwood production that can remain in the forest after harvest, and (2) the recovery rate of logging residues (RR), i.e., the part of residues that can be collected from total logging residues taking into account technical and ecological constraints. The logging residues and recovery rates let us calculate the unused part of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass.

2.3. Assessment of the Ratio between Annual Fellings and the Net Annual Increment of Forest Wood Biomass

The ratio between the annual fellings and the net annual increment of wood (annual volume of increment of all trees) is a major indicator of long-term sustainability and characterises wood-use sustainability [7,39,40]. The balance between annual fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass is one of the indicators of sustainable forest management, i.e., for Criterion 3: maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests [41]. The application of this rule ensures the current sustainable use of forest wood biomass and determines the sustainable potential of wood biomass in the future. Therefore, this ratio can be an indicator of the forest wood biomass potential in terms of sustainability. This sustainability ratio (SR) is expressed by the following formula:
SR = (F × 100%)/NAI
where F refers to fellings (the amount of felled trees) and NAI is the net increment of forest wood biomass. In this study, annual fellings are calculated as the sum of the domestic extraction of roundwood and logging resources. The European Environment Agency recommends a 70% ratio between the net annual felling and annual felling of forest wood biomass to ensure sustainable forest management [42]. In this study, this methodology is applied at the national level, in the assessment of wood biomass in EU countries. However, this methodology can also be applied at the regional level if the country has sufficient primary by county.

3. Results

3.1. Self-Sufficiency and Imports-Dependence Ratio in Wood Biomass

Roundwood (industrial roundwood and fuelwood) extraction in the EU countries has increased in recent the 10 years by 11 wt.% in 2021 compared with 2012 and 21 wt.% in 2021 compared with 2000. Roundwood domestic consumption in the EU has increased relevantly by 10 wt.% in 2021 compared with 2012 and 15 wt.% in 2021 compared with 2000. Figure 2 shows the change between 2000 and 2021 in the roundwood domestic extraction, consumption, direct inputs (showing dependence on imports because it is the sum of domestic extraction and imports of roundwood), and exports, which shows that part of roundwood extraction is not used within the domestic economy. The obtained results indicate that most of the total extracted forest wood biomass is used as industrial roundwood, i.e., 75 wt.% in the EU.
A slightly higher amount of roundwood domestic consumption was noticeable compared to its domestic extraction; for example, roundwood domestic extraction amounted to 308 × 106 t in 2021, and meanwhile, roundwood domestic consumption amounted to 312 × 106 t. In the last ten years, roundwood domestic consumption, on average, exceeded domestic extraction by 2.5 wt.%. A slight decrease in roundwood extraction (both industrial roundwood and fuelwood) has been observed in the 2019–2020 period. This decrease was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought uncertainty to forest production and consumption. But already in 2021, roundwood extraction exceeded the pre-pandemic level of extraction in 2018 by 2 wt.%. Three countries were distinguished in the analysis of countries’ roundwood extraction and consumption. It was found that in 2021, the highest industrial roundwood extraction was in Sweden (40.9 million t), Finland (32.5 × 106 t), and Germany (31.3 × 106 t), and the highest fuelwood extraction was in Germany (15.5 × 106 t), Sweden (9 × 106 t), and Finland (6.7 × 106 t). The highest industrial roundwood consumption in 2021 was found in Sweden (42.1 × 106 t), Finland (35.5 × 106 t), and Germany (23.9 × 106 t), and the highest fuelwood consumption was in Germany (15.9 × 106 t), Sweden (9 × 106 t), and Finland (6.7 × 106 t).
The self-sufficiency ratio and imports dependency for primary wood biomass in EU countries are illustrated in Figure 3.
The self-sufficiency coefficients in industrial roundwood for 2021 show that fourteen EU countries (Croatia, Czechia, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Ireland, Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, and Poland) extract more wood biomass for the industry than domestic needs (SSR > 100 wt.%), and two countries (Sweden and France) extract a sufficient amount of industrial roundwood to meet domestic needs (SSR ≈ 100 wt.%). Ten countries (Cyprus, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Austria, Portugal, and Finland) are not self-sufficient in industrial wood biomass (SSR < 100 wt.%). Therefore, the imports of industrial roundwood are necessary to meet the domestic needs of these countries. The self-sufficiency coefficients in fuelwood for 2021 show that nine EU countries (Croatia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Estonia, Spain, Bulgaria, and Czechia) extract more wood biomass for fuel than domestic needs (SSR > 100 wt.%), and eight countries (Slovenia, France, Sweden, Hungary, Finland, Poland, Austria, and Germany) extract a sufficient amount of fuelwood to meet domestic needs (SSR ≈ 100 wt.%). Nine other countries (Cyprus, Slovakia, Italy, Luxembourg, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Romania) produce too little fuelwood (SSR < 100 wt.%); therefore, the imports of industrial roundwood are necessary to meet domestic needs. Malta lacks data to calculate the roundwood self-sufficiency coefficient. It can be interpreted that the self-sufficiency coefficient in roundwood within most EU countries is substantial, and as a result, half of the EU countries extract industrial wood, and one-third of all EU countries extract fuelwood more than their domestic needs. Therefore, they have the potential to export wood biomass; however, some countries need to import roundwood, because the primary wood biomass extraction cannot meet all domestic needs of industrial roundwood and fuelwood. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between self-sufficiency and imports dependency. It can be seen that the closer the self-sufficiency ratio is to 100 wt.%, the imports-dependency ratio is lower, but imports cannot ensure the domestic needs of primary wood biomass in all cases.
The self-sufficiency ratio and imports-dependency ratios have changed over time from 2000 to 2021 in the EU countries, as shown in in Table 1. The self-sufficiency ratio for forest wood biomass is stably high over the entire period from 2000 to 2021 in Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.
Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands were very dependent on imports over the entire period from 2000 to 2021. Industrial roundwood imports account for 93 wt.% of total wood biomass imports. The imports-dependency ratio for total wood biomass in the EU increased throughout the 2000–2021 period. This indicates that increasing need came from imports of wood biomass. This dependency in 2000 accounted for 29 wt.% and did not exceed 30 wt.% until 2015. From 2016, the imports-dependence ratio slowly increased every year, and in 2021, it amounted to 34 wt.% due to increasing imports dependence on industrial roundwood. The imports-dependency ratio for industrial roundwood changed from 32 wt.% in 2000 to 39 wt.% in 2021; at the same time, the imports-dependence ratio for fuelwood decreased from 7 wt.% to 6 wt.%. The total EU imports-dependency ratio is less than 50%, which allows us to make the conclusion that the EU meets more of its domestic needs with domestic wood biomass resources. However, the distribution of imports dependency by countries is somewhat different, which is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. For example, Slovakia, Italy, Luxembourg, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Romania do not meet all needs in fuelwood, and at the same time, these countries do not have imports dependence. Cyprus has a high imports-dependence ratio for fuelwood, but regardless, a low self-sufficiency ratio. Eight other countries (Slovenia, France, Sweden, Hungary, Finland, Poland, Austria, and Germany) extract a sufficient amount of fuelwood to meet domestic needs (SSR ≈ 100 wt.%) and have a very low imports-dependence ratio.

3.2. Logging Residues

There are differences in the rate of logging residue generation depending on the stocking density, the volume of branches, and tree species [43]. In addition, a part of logging residues is not available due to technical and ecological constraints. The recovery rate of available logging residues depends on the climate and conditions of the region, forest types, operating conditions, location, geographical distances, the variable quality of the standing stock in the forest and size of residues, different terrain conditions, and on raw material prices [36,44,45,46,47]. The recovery rate also depends on the type of harvest: whole-tree harvesting or slash recovery [48]. Table 2 shows the differences in the rate of logging residues and recovery rate according to sources of scientific literature and institutions.
A 50/50 ratio of logging residues rule is often found in the literature [36]. This traditional rule was validated by case studies when, for every cubic meter of wood extracted from the forest, another cubic meter is left behind [43,72]. The study by Koopmans and Koppejan [36] is a summary of several sources with wood biomass residues. The authors of this study use the ratio of wood forest residues of 40% and a recovery rate of 60%, and this initial source has been massively cited. The authors note that they show the gross amount of logging residues, which are generated in theory. Some authors draw on national data. For example, in their study, McKeever and Falk [44] examined the wood forestry logging residues from roundwood in the United States, based on published waste generation by the USDA Forest Service, which compiles information on the volume of logging residues from roundwood production. In the study by McKeever and Falk [44], the rate of logging residues from the total used roundwood production is 36%. In other study [56], the forest logging residues have been evaluated on the basis of the most recent national census data in China. Based on these data, the rate of logging residues is 43%, and the recovery rate is 55% of total residues.
The study by Jölli and Giljum [57] is based on three main papers calculating forestry logging residues [36,44,56], which were described earlier in our study. Jölli and Giljum [57] suggest using a mean value of the rate of logging residues of 30% of the total used roundwood and a recovery rate of 75% of total residues. The Kumasi Institute report [54] estimated that 45–55% of the wood volume of harvested trees is left in the forest as logging residues. Osman et al. [74] provide a review based on other older studies of the rates of logging residues, such as Harun et. al. [46] and FRIM [51] (these two sources were also analysed by Koopmans and Koppejan [36], which determined 34% and 30% rates of logging residues respectively, and by Kong [53]—a 43% rate of logging residues). Ogunrinde and Owoyemi [62] state that more than 20% of the harvested tree is left as a residue in the forest. An analysis by Steubing et al. [9] of some studies showed that logging residues consist of 38% of all harvested wood. Ratnasingam et al. [45], in their study, also use the rate of logging residues offered by Kong [53]—43%. Cave and Council [63] found that logging residues are typically estimated at about 15% of the total roundwood, and the recovery rate is 25%. Ververk et al. [10] indicate a 12% rate of logging residues. Spinelli et al. [32] reviewed various articles and indicated that the rate of logging residues from roundwood is 30–40%, and the recovery rate is 40–70%, and this depends on specific conditions. Titus et al. [68] reviewed 32 guidelines in the USA, Canada, Europe, and East Asia, and indicated that the minimum recovery rate is 15–33% and the maximum is 50–66%.
Other authors draw on conducted field studies. Peltola et al. [58] conducted field studies in stands of Norway spruce and found that the recovery rate was about 62%. The study of Thiffault et al. [60] is a review of field studies and analyses the recovery rates reported in a large number of previous studies based on 68 values representing recovery rates and offers a 52% recovery rate. In Spinelli et al. [32], this review analyses the recovery rates reported in a large array of previous studies, and it provides essential reference figures. Ghaffariyan and Dupuis [69] calculated the weight of harvesting residues per hectare in order to determine the recovery rate of logging residues. They found that depending on different methods of harvesting technologies, the recovery rate of logging residues is from 15 to 68, but the average recovery rate was 41.6% for all types of biomass recovery machines. Korboulewsky et al. [48] also performed the analysis of field studies and determined an average rate of logging residues of 40–50% for roundwood. In their field study, Nonini et al. [46] quantified the dry mass of logging residues and determined a 60% recovery rate. A review of Ghaffariyan [47] based on results of published research reports and field study articles from 2017 to 2022 showed that 35% (in Asia) and 60% (in South America) of harvesting residues left on the sites and about 60–70% (in North America) and 68% (in Australia) of produced harvesting residues were recovered. A field study by Dvořák et al. [38] was based on the relationship between the tree stem volume of Norway spruce and the volumes of related logging residues, and a rate of logging residues of 69% was determined. The reports of international organisations were based on the field studies. FAO [72] reported that the mean volume of logging residues amounted to about 50% of the total harvested roundwood, and it is not uncommon for it to be some 60% of the total harvested [73], as for ITTO [52]—30% respectively.
We can see that field studies can provide relatively accurate percentages; however, the results of field studies are pretty different. Field studies calculate a specific rate of logging residues in a specific field, for a certain type of tree in certain logging methods, but on a macro scale, these results cannot be applied. based on Jölli and Giljum [57], no data on logging residues in forestry are directly available; therefore, the authors offer to estimate residues that should be based on the rate of logging residues reported in the literature. This study will focus on the ratio of logging residues and the recovery rate from sources used in the literature review. The suggested ratio of logging residues of 40%, and a recovery rate of 60% by Koopmans and Koppejan [36] has often been used in the scientific literature, and we will use these percentages for our study.
The calculated logging residues as unused potential in primary wood biomass are illustrated in Figure 5. There is an unused additional part of the sustainable potential of forest wood primary biomass. The use of this additional potential can increase the overall potential of forest wood biomass by 24 wt.%. It is noted that these are general percentage rates that are highly subject to local differences. The exact amount of logging residues will depend on the forest type, age, terrain, forestry treatment, and the paid price for these residues.

3.3. Balance between Annual Fellings and the Net Annual Increment of Wood Biomass

The ratio between annual fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass in EU countries is illustrated in Figure 6.
In total, the EU forest fellings account for about 70% of the net annual increment of wood biomass. But this rate varies by country. The ratio between annual fellings and the net annual increment of wood biomass is greater than 100% in five EU countries (Luxemburg, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, and Estonia). The highest ratio is in Luxemburg (185%) and Denmark (128%). The ratio exceeding 100% shows that the country’s potential for forest wood biomass is not used sustainably. In the other three countries, the rate between annual fellings and the net annual increment of wood biomass is related nearly by 100%, i.e., 99% in Czechia and Hungary, and 96% in Germany. This can be interpreted as the sufficient sustainable use of the potential of forest wood biomass. The remaining seventeen countries use the potential of forest wood biomass sustainably, as the rate is lower than 95%. Notably, in almost half of the EU countries, the recommended 70% ratio between the net annual increment and annual felling of forest wood was determined, i.e., Finland, Poland, Slovenia, Belgium, Spain, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Ireland, France, Greece, Italy, and Cyprus.
In recent years, the volume of the annual forest felling in the EU was relatively stable and has remained under 70% of the net annual increment of forest wood. Comparing the ratio self-sufficiency ratio and the ratio between annual fellings and net annual increment of wood biomass in the EU countries, statistically significant differences were found. The sustainable ratio of felling and net annual increment of forest wood biomass does not always ensure the country’s domestic supply of wood. On the other hand, the domestic self-sufficiency for primary wood biomass does not in all cases show a disbalance between fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass. However, both of these indicators must be evaluated when analysing the potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development.

4. Discussion

The self-sufficiency of roundwood is quite high in the EU (the SSR for industrial roundwood is 98 wt.%, and the SSR for fuelwood is 99 wt.%), and this indicates a good potential to meet all domestic industrial and fuelwood needs. Most of the total extracted forest wood biomass is used as industrial roundwood, i.e., 51 wt.% in the world and 75 wt.% in the EU. The export of total wood biomass accounts for 49 wt.% of the EU (63 wt.% of industrial roundwood and 6 wt.% of fuelwood). The export of forest wood biomass means that wood raw materials are exported to other countries for processing, and then, the country loses income, does not develop the production of wood products, and thus contributes less to the circular economy, which hinders the development of the bioeconomy. It is assumed that the reason is the lack of cooperation between wood producers and wood processing companies and the lack of political support. This attitude needs to be changed because those countries that export industrial roundwood do not use wood resources efficiently. A small distance must be ensured between the place of extraction and the place of processing of wood biomass. In this way, it is possible to create both a regional industry and comply with ecological constraints. It is considered necessary to reduce exports in order to direct more roundwood to wood production with added value. The self-sufficiency ratio for fuelwood is quite high but has more potential. The fuelwood amount that comes from imported biomass can be decreased. Instead of importing fuelwood, it is possible to use the potential of logging residues, and private forest owners could supply fuel to central heating suppliers.
Logging residues are part of the sustainable potential of wood biomass. Not all residues are usable; sometimes, when the local population faces fuelwood shortages, all logging residues are collected, and in this case, recovery rates can be considered to be close to 100% [43]. The opportunities for extraction of logging residues depend on many reasons, i.e., forest region, types [36,46,67], technical possibilities, and ecological constraints. Recently, there has been an emphasis and focus on biofuel as an alternate energy source for the achievement of global sustainability goals to lessen the adverse effects of the climate [75,76]. Logging residues are in high demand as a renewable fuel, but at the same time, they are a natural fertiliser; therefore, they need to be used rationally [35]. We cannot forget that logging residues are crucial for the forest carbon stock and biodiversity [48]. Considerable quantities of logging residues remain unused; however, there is a lack of information about the use of these residues [36]. Therefore, a database system for accounting for the generation of logging residues is needed.
Increasing domestic fuelwood potential with logging residues can reduce fossil fuel dependency and a country’s dependency on imports. This is one way to have stable and affordable energy, not depending on energy price volatility. However, this additional domestic extraction of fuelwood cannot guarantee its supply according to counties’ needs in the domestic market. This challenge can be addressed by conducting research based on the evaluation of the extraction and consumption of wood biomass by counties, and based on these results, developing effective logistics and managing consumption at the regional level. This can need specific forest biomass fuel systems, and in such a way, they would contribute to the sustainable development of the local wood-based bioeconomy [77]. In recent years, the interest in the sustainable potential of wood biomass has increased due to global warming and the increasing biomass demand. At the same time, concern about how to ensure the sustainable use of wood biomass potential is increasing. Forests can offer many opportunities both from primary and secondary wood biomass resources. Adopting circular bioeconomy strategies in the forest wood sector is an opportunity for the sustainable use of forest wood biomass [78]. Wieruszewski and Mydlarz [14] note that despite the fact that primary wood biomass accounted for almost 22% of all bioenergy potential in 2020 in the EU, European Parliament wants to consider this part of biomass as an unsustainable resource for energy. This opinion is because first, according to the principles of the circular bioeconomy, wood biomass must be used for production, not for energy. This further confirms the need to use logging residues for fuel and substantiates the relevance of this issue. Bioeconomy processes cope with uncertainties, which can influence the future sustainable development of the wood-based bioeconomy; this significantly depends on climate politics and globalisation [79]. Extreme weather phenomena, failure of actions to mitigate climate change, pollution in the human living environment, and the loss of biodiversity can have a negative impact on the forest sector and the possibility of the sustainable use of wood for all needs [80]. A bioeconomy based on wood biomass is always labelled as a sustainable bioeconomy; however, with the increasing demand for wood biomass, this can be questioned [79]. Sustainability issues in wood biomass extraction and consumption have to be analysed and discussed constantly in order to assess the current use of wood resources and perspectives. The approach to sustainability challenges should be with a long-term perspective with the objective of using all available resources to produce wood products and clean energy and all opportunities for European countries to achieve sustainable goals [81]. The sustainable use of forest wood biomass is the way to the EU’s transition to a sustainable climate-neutral bioeconomy [6].
According to Kaufmann et al. [23], the assessment of the relationship between production and consumption can expand from just the concept of self-sufficiency to the concept of the sustainable potential of primary biomass. In order to collect suitable information for forestry development decision-making in terms of a sustainable bioeconomy, it is important to assess the balance between felling and increment of wood biomass and the extraction and consumption ratio in the local market, as well as to evaluate the possibilities of using logging residues as additional potential.

5. Conclusions

This study proposes the methodology for the assessment potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development based on the economy-wide material flow analysis and proxy indicators. The potential of forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development is presented as used and unused wood biomass and as the balance between annual fellings and net annual increment of wood biomass The methodology supports the basic idea that it is important to assess real used potential (extracted and used in the economy), how it was used (i.e., which part was used for industry, which part was exported, whether needs are met with local potential, or the needs for imports of forest wood biomass), what are the opportunities of unused potential, and what is the connection between felling and the net increment of forest wood biomass. This study provides insight into how much of the potential is being extracted, whether it meets domestic needs for primary wood, and also assumes how much unused potential there is.
Findings have shown that the imports dependency on total wood biomass in the EU increased throughout the 2000–2021 period, and this is not a good indicator. Fuelwood imports can be covered by the potential of logging residues, which is part of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass. The EU self-sufficiency for roundwood is about 99 wt.%, and this has good potential to meet all domestic industrial and fuelwood needs. We found that the EU forest fellings account for about 70 wt.% of the net annual increment of wood biomass. This shows that the total EU balance between fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass is sustainable, but this ratio is different by countries.
Future directions and limitations are defined as recommendations to investigate the potential of forest wood biomass by counties of countries for local sustainable wood-based bioeconomy development. The proposed methodology proposed in this study can be applied at the regional level. For example, the territory of the Republic of Lithuania currently comprises 10 counties; however, there is a lack of data that would characterise the countries according to roundwood consumption, the net annual increment of wood biomass, and the amount of generated logging residues. It would be particularly relevant for the application of the cascading use principle of a sustainable circular economy in practice to create, for businesses, value chains of wood biomass. Therefore, future research on the potential of forest wood biomass should determine how to consider the distribution of the potential and consumption of wood, as well as logging residues, by the regions of the country.
Not only primary forest wood biomass but secondary forest wood biomass should be examined to achieve set directions for how the wood industry should be focused on more added-value products and reuse. The present situation of the increasing demand for wood biomass, together with a drive to use these biological resources sustainably, promotes deeper studies on the potential of wood biomass and its opportunities. The sustainable extraction and use of forest wood biomass and maintaining a sustainable balance between fellings and the annual increment of forest wood biomass will have a significant impact on the final greenhouse gas balance emission in the long term. The use of fuelwood will also contribute to the enhancement of energy security. Similar studies of the assessment potential of forest wood biomass in the future can give information that may contribute to the development of government sustainable development programs. It is necessary to try different ways to evaluate sustainability in order to make the right decisions for the future in all bioeconomic sectors, including forestry.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Social Fund under the No 09.3.3-LMT-K-712 “Development of Competencies of Scientists, Other Researchers, and Students through Practical Research Activities” measure, Grant No: 09.3.3-LMT-K-712-23-0026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the existing affiliation information. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

Abbreviations

DC Domestic consumption
DIDirect inputs
EUEuropean Union
EW-MFAEconomy-wide material flow accounts
EXPPhysical exports
haHectares
IDRImports-dependency ratio
IMPPhysical imports
NAINet annual increment
RLRRate of logging residues
RRRecovery rate of logging residues
SRSustainability ratio
SSRSelf-sufficiency ratio
tTonnes
wt.%Percentage by weight in tonnes
×106Million
×103Thousand

References

  1. Geneva Environment Network. Importance of Forests and the Role of Geneva. Available online: https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/importance-of-forests-and-the-role-of-geneva/ (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  2. European Environment Agency. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2020. Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/publications/soer-2020 (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  3. Hetemäki, L.; Nasi, R.; Palahi, M.; Cerutti, P.; Mausch, K. The Future of Wood-towards Circular Bioeconomy. 2021. Available online: https://efi.int/publications/future-wood-towards-circular-bioeconomy-2022-01-04 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  4. Camia, A.; Giuntoli, J.; Jonsson, K.; Robert, N.; Cazzaniga, N.; Jasinevičius, G.; Avitabile, V.; Grassi, G.; Barredo Cano, J.I.; Mubareka, S. The Use of Woody Biomass for Energy Production in the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. European Commission. Sustainable Europe by 2030. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-towards-sustainable-europe-2030_en (accessed on 22 July 2023).
  6. European Commission. Communication: New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/document/cf3294e1-8358-4c93-8de4-3e1503b95201_en (accessed on 22 July 2023).
  7. Karjalainen, T.; Asikainen, A.; Ilavský, J.; Zamboni, R.; Hotari, K.E.; Röser, D. Estimation of Energy Wood Potential in Europe. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228592570_Estimation_of_energy_wood_potential_in_Europe (accessed on 12 July 2023).
  8. Hetsch, S. Potential Sustainable Wood Supply in Europe; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009; Available online: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/Dp-52.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2023).
  9. Steubing, B.; Zah, R.; Waeger, P.; Ludwig, C. Bioenergy in Switzerland: Assessing the domestic sustainable biomass potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Verkerk, P.J.; Fitzgerald, J.B.; Datta, P.; Dees, M.; Hengeveld, G.M.; Lindner, M.; Zudin, S. Spatial distribution of the potential forest biomass availability in Europe. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jekayinfa, S.O.; Orisaleye, J.I.; Pecenka, R. An assessment of potential resources for biomass energy in Nigeria. Resources 2020, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thees, O.; Erni, M.; Lemm, R.; Stadelmann, G.; Zenner, E.K. Future potentials of sustainable wood fuel from forests in Switzerland. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 141, 105647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kumar, A.; Adamopoulos, S.; Jones, D.; Amiandamhen, S.O. Forest biomass availability and utilization potential in Sweden: A review. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021, 12, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wieruszewski, M.; Mydlarz, K. The potential of the bioenergy market in the European union—An overview of energy biomass resources. Energies 2022, 15, 9601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saal, U.; Iost, S.; Weimar, H. Supply of wood processing residues–a basic calculation approach and its application on the example of wood packaging. Trees For. People 2022, 7, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pradhan, P.; Lüdeke, M.K.; Reusser, D.E.; Kropp, J.P. Food self-sufficiency across scales: How local can we go? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9463–9470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Clapp, J. Food self-sufficiency: Making sense of it, and when it makes sense. Food Policy 2017, 66, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baer-Nawrocka, A.; Sadowski, A. Food security and food self-sufficiency around the world: A typology of countries. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Beltran-Peña, A.; Rosa, L.; D’Odorico, P. Global food self-sufficiency in the 21st century under sustainable intensification of agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 095004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Godenau, D.; Caceres-Hernandez, J.J.; Martin-Rodriguez, G.; Gonzalez-Gomez, J.I. A consumption-oriented approach to measuring regional food self-sufficiency. Food Security 2020, 12, 1049–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Schreiber, K.; Hickey, G.M.; Metson, G.S.; Robinson, B.E.; MacDonald, G.K. Quantifying the foodshed: A systematic review of urban food flow and local food self-sufficiency research. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 023003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kaufmann, L.; Mayer, A.; Matej, S.; Kalt, G.; Lauk, C.; Theurl, M.C.; Erb, K.H. Regional self-sufficiency: A multi-dimensional analysis relating agricultural production and consumption in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Noorollahi, Y.; Janalizadeh, H.; Yousefi, H.; Jahangir, M.H. Biofuel for energy self-sufficiency in agricultural sector of Iran. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 44, 101069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vijay, V.; Chandra, R.; Subbarao PM, V. Biomass as a means of achieving rural energy self-sufficiency: A concept. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022, 12, 382–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eurostat. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts Handbook; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-gq-18-00619p (accessed on 14 June 2023).
  27. Eurostat. Material Flow Accounts. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/env_ac_mfa_sims.htm (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  28. FAO Faostat Forestry Productions Statistics—Data Structure. Available online: https://www.fao.org/forestry/49962-0f43c0da7039a611aa884b3c6c642f4ac.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  29. EC; FAO; ITTO; UNECE. Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire Definitions. Available online: www.fao.org/forestry/37537-0192cab302795d2aed9baa79b4d0bb040.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  30. European Commission. Logging Residues. 2021. Available online: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/glossary-item/logging-residues_en (accessed on 8 August 2023).
  31. Pottie, M.; Guimier, D. Harvesting and Transport of Logging Residuals and Residues; FERIC Special Report SR-33; Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada: Pointe-Claire, QU, Canada, 1986; 100p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Spinelli, R.; Visser, R.; Björheden, R.; Röser, D. Recovering energy biomass in conventional forest operations: A review of integrated harvesting systems. Curr. For. Rep. 2019, 5, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Spinelli, R. (Bioeconomy Institute, Florence, Italy). Personal communication, 2023.
  34. The State Forestry Service (The State Forestry Service, Kaunas, Lithuania). Personal communication, 2023.
  35. United Nations Environment Programme. A Global Manual on Economy Wide Material Flow Accounting. The Use of Natural Resources in the Economy. 2021. Available online: https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-manual-economy-wide-material-flow-accounting (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  36. Koopmans, A.; Koppejan, J. Agricultural and Forest Residues-Generation, Utilization and Availability. Reg. Consult. Mod. Appl. Biomass Energy 1997, 6, 10. Available online: https://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/energy/HC270799/RWEDP/acrobat/p_residues.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2023).
  37. Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.H.; Gingrich, S.; Lauk, C.; Haberl, H. Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 471–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dvořák, J.; Jankovský, M.; Kormanek, M.; Natov, P.; Straka, P. Conversion of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.) tree stem volume to volumes of produced logging residues and wood chips. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2023, 96, cpad003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hahn, W.A.; Knoke, T. Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: Analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 787–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tomter, S.M.; Kuliešis, A.; Gschwantner, T. Annual volume increment of the European forests—Description and evaluation of the national methods used. Ann. For. Sci. 2016, 73, 849–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Forest Europe. State of Europe’s Forests. 2020. Available online: https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2023).
  42. European Environment Agency. Forest: Growing Stock, Increment and Fellings. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-3/assessment (accessed on 31 July 2023).
  43. FAO. Availability and Use of Logging Residues. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/x6966e/X6966E01.htm (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  44. McKeever, D.B.; Falk, R.H. Woody Residues and Solid Waste Wood Available for Recovery in the United States, 2002. Management of Recovered Wood Recycling, Bioenergy and Other Options, 2004; pp. 307–316. Available online: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_mckeever001.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2023).
  45. Ratnasingam, J.; Ramasamy, G.; Ioras, F.; Senin, A.L. Environmental and economic impact of using logging residues as bioenergy: The case of Malaysia. BioResources 2017, 12, 7268–7282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nonini, L.; Schillaci, C.; Fiala, M. Assessing logging residues availability for energy production by using forest management plans data and geographic information system (GIS). Eur. J. For. Res. 2022, 141, 959–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghaffariyan, M.R. Short review of collecting technologies and methods in forest harvesting residues recovery. Silva Balc. 2023, 24, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Korboulewsky, N.; Bilger, I.; Bessaad, A. How to Evaluate Downed Fine Woody Debris Including Logging Residues? Forests 2021, 12, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Harun, J.; Darus, A.R.M.; Wong, W.C. Wood residue and its utilization in Peninsular Malaysia. In Proceedings of the Seminar on ‘Management and Utilization of Industrial Wastes’, Serdang, Malaysia, 13–14 September 1984. [Google Scholar]
  50. GOI (Government of Indonesia). Situation and Outlook of the Forestry Sector in Indonesia; Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Forestry and Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1990.
  51. FRIM. Utilization of Industrial Wood Residues. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “Logging and Industrial Wood Residues Utilization”; Jakarta, Indonesia, 24 August 1992, Forest Research Institute Malaysia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  52. ITTO. Final Report of the Forest Studies. 1994. Available online: https://www.itto.int/files/itto_project_db_input/2360/Technical/pd74-90-2%20(F%20I)%20e_Final%20report%20of%20the%20forest%20studies_E.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2023).
  53. Kong, H.Y. Current status of biomass utilization in Malaysia. For. Res. Inst. Malays. 2000, 1, 15. [Google Scholar]
  54. KITE (Kumasi Institute of Technology and Environment). Ghana Sawmill Energy Efficiency Study. Final Report. 2001. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d64e5274a27b2001809/R74131.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2023).
  55. Cuchet, E.; Roux, P.; Spinelli, R. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass Bioenerg 2004, 27, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cuiping, L.; Chuangzhi, Y.W.; Haitao, H. Study on the distribution and quantity of biomass residues resource in China. Biomass Energy 2004, 27, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jölli, D.; Giljum, S. Unused Biomass Extraction in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. SERI (Sustainable Europe Research Institute) Studies, Vienna, Austria, 2005, 3. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefan-Giljum/publication/228904255_Unused_biomass_extraction_in_agriculture_forestry_and_fishery/links/00b49517a639ac7aa2000000/Unused-biomass-extraction-in-agriculture-forestry-and-fishery.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2023).
  58. Peltola, S.; Kilpeläinen, H.; Asikainen, A. Recovery rates of logging residue harvesting in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) dominated stands. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1545–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lithuanian Forest and Land Owners Association. Available online: https://www.forest.lt/naujienos/a-1099/ (accessed on 25 July 2023).
  60. Thiffault, E.; Béchard, A.; Paré, D.; Allen, D. Recovery rate of harvest residues for bioenergy in boreal and temperate forests: A review. WIREs Energ Environ. 2014, 4, 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kizha, A.R.; Han, H.-S. Forest residues recovered from whole-tree timber harvesting operations. Eur. J. For. Eng. 2015, 1, 46–55. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ogunrinde, O.S.; Owoyemi, J.M. Sustainable Management of Nigerian Forest Through Efficient Recovery of Harvesting Residues. Int. J. Sci. Res. Multi. Stud. 2016, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cave, M.; Council, G.R. Best Practices for Reducing Harvest Residues and Mitigating Mobilisation of Harvest Residues in Steepland Plantation Forests. School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ 1IVALSA, CNR, Italy, 2018. Available online: https://www.nzffa.org.nz/system/assets/3046/1879-GSDC152-Best-practices-for-reducing-harvest-residues-a.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2023).
  64. Cacot, E.; Deleuze, C.; Boldrini, C. Observatoire des Pratiques de Récolte du Bois Énergie et Évaluation D’outils de Flux. In Projet GERBOISE—Gestion RaiSonnée Du Bois Énergie; ADEME: Verneuil-sur-Vienne, France, 2018; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  65. Strandgard, M. Mitchell R 2019 Comparison of cost productivity residue yield of cutto-length fuel-adapted harvesting in a Pinus radiata, D. Don final harvest in Western Australia. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2019, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tartu Regional Energy Agency. Wood Fuel User Manual. 2020. Available online: https://www.kmaik.lt/uploads/Projektai/Wood-Fuel-User-Manual.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2023).
  67. Numazawa, C.T.D.; Krasovskiy, A.; Kraxner, F. Pietsch SA 2020 Logging residues for charcoal production through forest management in the Brazilian Amazon: Economic gains forest regrowth effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 114029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Titus, B.D.; Brown, K.; Helmisaari, H.S.; Vanguelova, E.; Stupak, I.; Evans, A.; Clarke, N.; Guidi, C.; Bruckman, V.J.; Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I.; et al. Sustainable Forest biomass: A review of current residue harvesting guidelines. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ghaffariyan, M.R.; Dupuis, E. Analysing the impact of harvesting methods on the quantity of harvesting residues: An Australian case study. Forests 2021, 12, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pergola, M.T.; Saulino, L.; Castellaneta, M.; Rita, A.; Pecora, G.; Cozzi, M.; Ripullone, F. Towards sustainable management of forest residues in the southern Apennine Mediterranean mountain forests: A scenario-based approach. Ann. For. Sci. 2022, 79, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Suhartana, S.; Yuniawati; Gandaseca, S.; Dulsalam; Soenarno; Ratnasingam, J. Potential of wood harvesting residues and residual stand damage due to timber harvesting: A case study at PT Austral Byna in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int. J. For. Res. 2022, 2022, 3251945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. FAO Can Logging Residues Be Used to Help Meet Timber Demands for the Downstream Processing Sector? Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/XII/0236-B4.htm (accessed on 19 June 2023).
  73. FAO The Potential Use of Wood Residues for Energy Generation. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/t0269e/t0269e08.htm (accessed on 11 July 2023).
  74. Osman, N.B.; Othman, H.T.; Karim, R.A.; Mazlan, M.A.F. Biomass in Malaysia: Forestry-Based Residues. Int. J. Biomass Renew. 2014, 3, 7–14. Available online: https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijbr/article/view/13872/7153 (accessed on 11 June 2023).
  75. Abbasi, T.U.; Ahmad, M.; Asma, M.; Munir, M.; Zafar, M.; Katubi, K.M.; Bokhari, A. High efficient conversion of Cannabis sativa L. biomass into bioenergy by using green tungsten oxide nano-catalyst towards carbon neutrality. Fuel 2023, 336, 126796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Scrucca, F.; Barberio, G.; Cutaia, L.; Rinaldi, C. A simplified methodology for estimating the Carbon Footprint of heat generation by forest woodchips as a support tool for sustainability assessment in decision-making. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2023, 9, 100126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brandão, P.C.; de Souza, A.L.; Rousset, P.; Simas FN, B.; de Mendonça, B.A.F. Forest biomass as a viable pathway for sustainable energy supply in isolated villages of Amazonia. Environ. Dev. 2021, 37, 100609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Borrello, M.; Altomonte, E.; Cembalo, L.; D’Amico, V.; Lombardi, A. Circular bioeconomy and the forest-wood sector: Bridging the gap between policies and disadvantages forest areas. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hagemann, N.; Gawel, E.; Purkus, A.; Pannicke, N.; Hauck, J. Possible futures towards a wood-based bioeconomy: A scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability 2016, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Majchrzak, M.; Szczypa, P.; Adamowicz, K. Supply of Wood Biomass in Poland in Terms of Extraordinary Threat and Energy Transition. Energies 2022, 15, 5381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P.; Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Settembre-Blundo, D.; Shen, Y. Bioeconomy of sustainability: Drivers, opportunities and policy implications. Sustainability 2022, 14, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 13871 g001
Figure 1. The classification of roundwood extraction (based on Eurostat, FAO [26,27,28,29]).
Figure 1. The classification of roundwood extraction (based on Eurostat, FAO [26,27,28,29]).
Sustainability 15 13871 g001
Sustainability 15 13871 g002
Figure 2. Change in the roundwood domestic extraction, consumption, direct inputs, and exports in the EU-27, 2000–2021.
Figure 2. Change in the roundwood domestic extraction, consumption, direct inputs, and exports in the EU-27, 2000–2021.
Sustainability 15 13871 g002
Sustainability 15 13871 g003
Figure 3. Self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) and imports-dependency ratio (IDR) for primary wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Figure 3. Self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) and imports-dependency ratio (IDR) for primary wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Sustainability 15 13871 g003
Sustainability 15 13871 g004
Figure 4. Connection between the self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) and imports-dependency ratio (IDR) for primary wood biomass by EU countries, 2021 (AT—Austria, BE—Belgium, BG—Bulgaria, CY—Cyprus, CZ—Czechia, DE—Germany, DK—Denmark, EE—Estonia, EL—Greece, ES—Spain, FI—Finland, FR—France, HR—Croatia, HU—Hungary, IE—Ireland, IT—Italy, LV—Latvia, LT—Lithuania, LU—Luxemburg, NL—Netherlands, PL—Poland, PT—Portugal, RO—Romania, SE—Sweden, SI—Slovenia, SK—Slovakia).
Figure 4. Connection between the self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) and imports-dependency ratio (IDR) for primary wood biomass by EU countries, 2021 (AT—Austria, BE—Belgium, BG—Bulgaria, CY—Cyprus, CZ—Czechia, DE—Germany, DK—Denmark, EE—Estonia, EL—Greece, ES—Spain, FI—Finland, FR—France, HR—Croatia, HU—Hungary, IE—Ireland, IT—Italy, LV—Latvia, LT—Lithuania, LU—Luxemburg, NL—Netherlands, PL—Poland, PT—Portugal, RO—Romania, SE—Sweden, SI—Slovenia, SK—Slovakia).
Sustainability 15 13871 g004
Sustainability 15 13871 g005
Figure 5. Used and unused potential of primary wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Figure 5. Used and unused potential of primary wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Sustainability 15 13871 g005
Sustainability 15 13871 g006
Figure 6. The ratio between annual fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Figure 6. The ratio between annual fellings and the net annual increment of forest wood biomass in the EU-27 countries, 2021.
Sustainability 15 13871 g006
Table 1. Temporal changes of self-sufficiency and imports-dependency ratios have changed in the period of 2000 to 2021 in the EU countries.
Table 1. Temporal changes of self-sufficiency and imports-dependency ratios have changed in the period of 2000 to 2021 in the EU countries.
CountryVariableAverage, 2000–2021Standard Deviation, 2000–2021Minimum, 2000–2021Maximum, 2000–2021
AustriaSSR7976691
IDR4834155
BelgiumSSR37141979
IDR7876490
BulgariaSSR13316109176
IDR83415
CyprusSSR85321
IDR9257997
CzechiaSSR18764136373
IDR1961230
GermanySSR106389122
IDR2812136
DenmarkSSR4863755
IDR6055268
EstoniaSSR28895161588
IDR229943
GreeceSSR5374063
IDR5264363
SpainSSR892063114
IDR3191944
FinlandSSR8777499
IDR2561635
FranceSSR103496108
IDR2341528
CroatiaSSR233111122508
IDR154724
HungarySSR1101382133
IDR3052242
IrelandSSR1414385224
IDR3872751
ItalySSR3442741
IDR6746375
LithuaniaSSR14018117173
IDR2511843
LuxemburgSSR472519100
IDR7785988
NetherlandsSSR24141356
IDR8757592
PolandSSR1076100119
IDR164823
PortugalSSR1021484129
IDR186827
RomaniaSSR12417105167
IDR127222
SwedenSSR95488102
IDR2021625
SloveniaSSR19710795469
IDR4053447
SlovakiaSSR12215103153
IDR159539
EU in totalSSR9429197
IDR3022734
Table 2. Comparison of different RLRs (rates of logging residues from total roundwood production) and RRs (recovery rates of residues from total logging residues) of different studies.
Table 2. Comparison of different RLRs (rates of logging residues from total roundwood production) and RRs (recovery rates of residues from total logging residues) of different studies.
SourceRLR, %RR, %
Harun et al. [49]3466
GOI [50]40
FRIM [51]30
ITTO [52]30
Koopmans and Koppejan [36]4060
Kong [53]43
KITE [54]45–55
FAO [43]50
Cuchet et al. [55] 50
McKeever and Falk [44]3690
Cuiping et al. [56]4355
Jölli and Giljum [57]3075
Steubing et al. [9]38
Peltola et al. [58] 62
Lithuanian Energy Organization [59]2050
Thiffault et al. [60] 52
Kizha and Han [61] 60–70
Ogunrinde and Owoyemi [62]20
Ratnasingam et al. [45]43
Cave and Council [63]1525
Cacot et al. [64]20
Strandgard and Mitchell [65] 68
Ververk et al. [10]12
Spinelli et al. [32]30–4040–70
Tartu Regional Energy Agency [66]25–30
Numazawa et al. [67]60
Korboulewsky et al. [48]40–50
Titus et al. [68] 33–66
Ghaffariyan and Dupuis [69] 42
Nonini et al. [46] 60
Pergola et al. [70]9–20
Suhartana et al. [71]35
Dvořák et al. [38]69
FAO [72]50
FAO [73]60
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Konstantinavičienė, J. Assessment of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813871

AMA Style

Konstantinavičienė J. Assessment of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813871

Chicago/Turabian Style

Konstantinavičienė, Julija. 2023. "Assessment of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813871

APA Style

Konstantinavičienė, J. (2023). Assessment of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 15(18), 13871. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813871

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop