This first major chapter of this report presents information about the trends and current status of a number of different aspects of the forest sector in Europe. It starts by describing the European forest resource, both in terms of the quantity and quality of the resource and the way that it is managed. Following this, a number of sections describe some of the main trends in the markets for forest products (wood products and raw materials, non-wood forest products, forest services and wood energy). It finishes by briefly describing how the sector interacts with society, both in terms of government policies within and outside the sector and the contribution that the forest sector makes to society.
A major factor affecting the development of the forest sector is the quantity and quality of forest resources and the way that those resources are managed to provide benefits for society. The following text describes some of the main quantitative trends in European forest resources over the last few decades.
Recent historical trends in the total area of forest and other wooded land (FOWL) in Europe are shown in Figure 3. As this figure shows, the area has increased slightly at the European level (by 3.4 percent or 36 million ha) over the last 20 years and in all three sub-regions. The CIS sub-region accounted for most of the increase during the 1980s, while Western Europe accounted for most of the increase in the 1990s.
Figure 3 Trends in the total area of forest and other wooded land in Europe since 1980
Source: derived from UN (1992) and UN (2000). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
For the purpose of analysing the productive capacity of Europe’s forest resources, changes in the area of forest available for wood supply (FAWS) are more relevant than the trends in total forest area. The study by Gold (2003) produced long-term historical trends in forest area for the majority of European countries and these are shown in Figure 4. As noted above, with the exception of the Russian Federation, this figure is based on the area of FAWS in most countries, so it also shows how the potential wood supply in Europe has changed over the last 50 years.
Figure 4 Trends in forest area in selected European countries from 1950 to 2000
Source: derived from Gold (2003), Annex 5.1. Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. The forest area shown here is FAWS, except for a few countries where statistics were provided for other definitions of forest area. See Section 1.4.1 for further details and explanation.
Overall, the FAWS area in these countries has increased by about 57 million ha (or six percent), from 973 million ha in 1950 to 1,030 million ha in 2000. At the sub-regional level, the area has also increased over the last 50 years in all three EFSOS sub-regions. The highest rate of growth has occurred in Western Europe, where the area has increased by 11 percent (or 11 million ha) since 1950. In the selected countries of Eastern Europe, forest area has increased by six percent (or 2 million ha) and the area of FOWL in the Russian Federation has increased by five percent (or 43 million ha). In addition, of the 27 countries covered in this analysis, the area has expanded in all but four countries.
These trends in forest area can be explained by three different driving forces: policy decisions; management decisions and natural causes. These driving forces have differed between countries and sub-regions, have changed over time and have acted in different directions. However, over the last 50 years, the most important driving forces have probably been changes in policies within and outside the forest sector. Changes in policy and management will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter (Sections 2.2 and 2.11), but a summary of the main driving forces behind these trends is given here below.
Agricultural policies: changes in agricultural policies have reduced the demand for agricultural land in some countries and encouraged the conversion of agricultural land to other land uses. In Western Europe, agricultural subsidies have resulted in an intensification of agriculture and a concentration of agricultural production on more productive land. In more recent years, agricultural policies in this region have deliberately encouraged the conversion of agricultural land to other uses and one of the main alternative uses has been the establishment of forest plantations.
Industrial policies: in Eastern Europe, the conversion of agricultural land to forest has occurred for slightly different reasons. In many of these countries, industrialisation has been a major policy goal over the last 50 years. This has resulted in urbanisation and rural depopulation, leading to abandonment of agricultural land and conversion of some of this land to forests.
Afforestation policies: in addition to agricultural policies, another major driving force has been forestry policies that deliberately encouraged afforestation for a variety of reasons. Such policies have been particularly important in Western Europe, where many of the countries with the highest growth in forest area are also countries where the establishment of forest plantations has been given most support (e.g. Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom). Afforestation has also been supported in some East European countries (e.g. Poland in the 1950s and 1960s) and was supported in Russia during the 1960s and 1970s.
Land restitution: in many of the countries in transition, land that was nationalised has been returned to the original land owners or their heirs. In some places, forest has been returned and has been converted to agricultural land. In most countries, this has probably not outweighed the forces acting in the opposite direction. However, it may provide an explanation for the slight reduction in forest area (FOWL) in the Russian Federation recorded at the end of the period (1993 - 1998).
Over-harvesting: over-harvesting of forest resources has been a problem in some Mediterranean countries, particularly in the earlier part of the period. Combined with grazing in forest areas and some deliberate conversion of forest to agricultural land, this has led to reductions in forest area in a few countries.
Illegal activities: illegal harvesting of forest resources is a more recent problem, which mostly affects some of the countries in transition. Statistics on the extent of this problem are not available, but it is believed that this has led to forest clearance in some areas. Illegal forest clearance to obtain land for commercial and tourism enterprises has also been mentioned as a problem in some Mediterranean countries. However, it appears that these two problems have generally not outweighed the forces encouraging forest expansion.
Inadequate funding: historically, clear cutting was the main harvesting system used in many parts of the Russian Federation. Inadequate funding for replanting and other activities to support regeneration has been noted as a problem since the 1980s. However, this does not appear to have resulted in a loss of forest area, although it has probably led to some forest degradation.
Natural causes: as noted above, natural regeneration has resulted in the conversion of some abandoned agricultural land back to forest. This has been suggested as an explanation for some of the increase in forest area in Scandinavian countries in the 1950s and 1960s. Regeneration of low quality trees and shrubs also partly explains the increase in forest area in the Russian Federation up until the early 1990s. Acting in the opposite direction, forest fires remain a major problem in Mediterranean countries and some parts of the Russian Federation and have led to some reductions in forest area.
It is not possible to compare the changes in the FAWS area with changes in the area of FOWL over this long time period, but an analysis of this for the last decade is given in the FRA (UN, 2000). This shows that, in general, both areas have increased over the last decade, except in a very small number of countries where the area of FAWS has declined while the area of FOWL has increased. These net figures show an increase of forest not available for wood supply in all but a very few countries, and in general the increase in “non-FAWS” is greater than the increase in FAWS. Thus, it is generally true to say that the area of forest reclassified from “available for wood supply” to “not available for wood supply” over the last decade (e.g. for nature conservation reasons) is less than the total increase in forest area. Unfortunately it is not possible at present to track with any accuracy the shifts between these categories, despite the undeniable policy interest of these trends.
The historical trend in growing stock in selected European countries is shown in Figure 5. For this figure, the growing stock statistics in each country refer to same forest areas that are presented above (i.e. mostly FAWS, but including other definitions of forest area in a few cases). Thus, the two data sets are comparable and the trends in growing stock per hectare have also been calculated (see Figure 6).
Figure 5 Trends in growing stock in selected European countries from 1950 to 2000
Source: derived from Gold (2003), Annex 5.2. Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. The growing stock shown here is for FAWS, except for a few countries where statistics were provided for other definitions of forest area. See Section 1.4.1 for further details and explanation.
The figure shows that the growing stock in these countries has increased by about 17 percent or 15 billion cubic metres overbark (o.b.), from 88 billion m3 o.b. in 1950 to 104 billion m3 o.b. in 2000. Within Europe, growing stock has also increased in all three EFSOS sub-regions and in all of the selected countries except one (Albania).
The highest rate of growth has occurred in Western Europe, where growing stock has increased by 91 percent (or 7 billion m3 o.b.) since 1950. In the selected countries of Eastern Europe, growing stock has increased by 51 percent (or 2 billion m3 o.b.) and growing stock in the Russian Federation has increased by eight percent (or 6 billion m3 o.b.). These changes in growing stock volume have mostly occurred due to changes in forest management (supported by changes in forestry policy) and, to a lesser extent, natural causes.
In most of Western Europe, the intensity of forest management has increased over the last 50 years, leading to higher levels of growing stock and increment. The main example of this is the expansion of forest plantations throughout much of the 1960s and 1970s. Apart from the increase in forest area, this has also led to higher levels of growing stock in the last two decades, as these plantations have reached the age when the trees start to grow very fast. Another example of increased management intensity is the conversion of coppice and coppice with standards to high forest in Belgium , France and other countries since 1970. In addition, an EFI study by Spieker et al. showed an “unexplained” increase in site productivity on sample plots all over Europe. This has been attributed among other things to the fertilising effect of nitrogen immissions.
In other parts of Western Europe, there have been trends towards less intensive forest management since the 1950s. However, this has also led to the same result. For example, in Italy during the 1950s, new forest policies were adopted that eliminated large-scale clear cutting. This led to reduced harvesting levels and increased growing stock. More generally, because harvesting levels have always been less than increment over the last 50 years (see Figure 9), this has led to an increase in growing stock across the whole of Europe.
Figure 6 Trends in growing stock per hectare in selected European countries from 1950 to 2000
Source: derived from Gold (2003), Annexes 5.1 and 5.2. Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. The growing stock shown here is for FAWS, except for a few countries where statistics were provided for other definitions of forest area. See Section 1.4.1 for further details and explanation.
In Eastern Europe, changes in growing stock have probably occurred due to natural causes more than changes in management intensity. Growing stock in Eastern Europe is higher (per hectare) than in Western Europe and has increased consistently throughout the period. However, forest area and increment have not increased significantly since 1970. This suggests that fellings and other losses (e.g. due to pests, disease and other disasters) have increased significantly since the 1970s at the same time that the forest estate has matured (i.e. middle-aged forest stands with high increment have grown into mature stands with lower increment). Much of the current forest area was planted in the late 1940s to 1960s, so it appears that the trend in growing stock in Eastern Europe has largely been driven by a shift in the age structure of forests.
The trend in growing stock in the Russian Federation indicates a modest rate of growth but also displays some volatility in the last two decades. This volatility is probably due to problems with data quality rather than changes in the forest resource. However, some qualitative indications of recent trends in growing stock were provided for this analysis by the national correspondents for the Russian Federation and these are presented below.
Recent trends in growing stock have varied between the different regions of the Russian Federation, with slight increases in the western parts of the country and decreases in Siberian regions. The main reasons for decreases in growing stock in Siberian regions have been intensive fellings in the 1980s, forest fires and attacks by insects. The greatest increase in growing stock has occurred in the Central Region, where felling has been reduced and the forests grow quite quickly.
Currently, mature and over-mature stands account for 54 percent of the total growing stock in the Russian Federation. Coniferous species (e.g. larch, spruce, pine and cedar) predominate, with a share of 78 percent of the growing stock. However, the growing stock of mature and over-mature stands (mainly conifers) has fallen by 9 billion m3 o.b. in recent years. On the other hand, the growing stock of broadleaved species has increased by 1.7 billion m3 o.b. This is largely due to the preference of the forest processing industry towards the utilisation of softwoods.
In general, the main reason for the increase in growing stock in the Russian Federation is that fellings have always been far below increment. For example, since 1950, annual increment has varied from 850 million m3 o.b. to 970 million m3 o.b., while the volume of fellings has varied from 500 million m3 o.b. to 250 million m3 o.b. (in more recent years). As in Eastern Europe, this shortfall combined with the gradual maturation of many stands has led to the trend displayed in Figure 5.
The volume of wood harvested per hectare amounts to only 0.22 m3 o.b. across the whole of the Russian Federation, with amounts as low as 0.11 m3 o.b. in the West Siberian Region, 0.15 m3 o.b. in the East Siberian Region and 0.05 m3 o.b. in the Far Eastern Region. For comparison, annual harvesting per hectare in countries with more developed forest industries often exceeds 2.5 m3 o.b.
The historical trend in annual increment in selected European countries is shown in Figure 7. In most cases, countries provided statistics for NAI, but a few countries provided statistics using alternative measures of increment. This figure presents totals for Europe and each sub-region, based on all of these statistics. Again, these statistics are comparable with the forest area statistics given earlier, so the trends in annual increment per hectare have also been calculated and are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 7 shows that annual increment in Europe has increased since 1950 by 33 percent or 411 million m3 o.b., from 1,246 million m3 o.b. in 1950 to 1,657 million m3 o.b. in 2000. Western Europe accounts for the majority of this increase, where annual increment has risen by 87 percent or 234 million m3 o.b. over the period. Annual increment has increased over the last 50 years by 45 percent (57 million m3 o.b.) in Eastern Europe and 14 percent (120 million m3 o.b.) in the Russian Federation.
In terms of annual increment per hectare, the increase in forest growth in Western Europe is also remarkable, having risen from 2.8 m3 o.b. to 4.7 m3 o.b. over the same period. Annual increment per hectare in Eastern Europe increased in the earlier part of the period to 4.3 m3 o.b. in 1970, but has increased very little since then. In the Russian Federation, forest growth has remained at around 1 m3 o.b. per hectare per year over the whole period.
Figure 7 Trends in annual increment in selected European countries from 1950 to 2000
Source: derived from Gold (2003), Annex 5.3. Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. The annual increment shown here is for FAWS, except for a few countries where statistics were provided for other definitions of forest area. See Section 1.4.1 for further details and explanation.
The remarkable increase in increment in Western Europe can largely be explained by a number of changes in forest management regimes. The most obvious of these is the establishment of forest plantations in the western and southern parts of Europe. The growth rates in these forest plantations are generally higher than in other types of forest and this has led to an increase in the average increment in Western Europe as a whole.
In addition, in northern parts of Western Europe, changes in forest management from selective cutting regimes to clear cutting regimes in the 1950s has led to the conversion of older slow growing stands to younger more vigorous stands. By the mid-1970s, many of these large areas of intensively managed semi-natural forest came into their fast growing phase, resulting in increases in annual increment. Other changes in forest management in Western Europe have also had an impact, such as the conversion of slow growing broadleaved forests into coniferous forests in the 1960s and 1970s in parts of Norway and the United Kingdom.
As explained above, the lack of a major increase in annual increment in Eastern Europe since the 1970s can be explained by natural losses, which increased in the mid-1970s until the mid-1980s. The reasons for this are complex, but are thought to include increases in air pollution, water pollution and man-made disturbance to the hydrology of the forest, which have all led to higher tree mortality. In addition, throughout many parts of Europe, the general increase in homogeneity and conversion of forests to even-aged stands have probably increased the susceptibility of forests to pathogens such as insects and fungi. These factors are made worse by natural events such as storms and forest fires, which can turn relatively minor problems into major natural losses. However, since the early-1990s, it is believed that forest health has started to improve in many East European countries.
Figure 8 Trends in annual increment per hectare in selected European countries from 1950 to 2000
Source: derived from Gold (2003), Annexes 5.1 and 5.3. Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. The annual increment shown here is for FAWS, except for a few countries where statistics were provided for other definitions of forest area. See Section 1.4.1 for further details and explanation.
One of the most important factors affecting the volume of growing stock and annual increment in the forest is the level of fellings from the forest. In addition, this is probably the most important human influence on the development of forest resources. Thus, it is interesting to see how the amount of fellings has compared with increment in the past and this is shown in Figure 9.
As this figure shows, the level of fellings in Europe and all three sub-regions has been persistently less than the annual increment in Europe’s forests over the period from 1961 to 2000. Furthermore, the difference between these measures has increased over the last 40 years. The ratio of fellings to increment has fallen from around 90 percent in Western Europe in the 1960s to 70 percent in the last decade. Similarly, the ratio has fallen from 80 percent to 70 percent in Eastern Europe over the same period. As noted above, the level of harvesting in the Russian Federation has always been far below increment, at around 50 percent, but this has also fallen dramatically in the last decade to around 20 percent.
As already noted, investments in expanding the forest area (forest plantations) and more intensive silviculture have increased the capacity of Europe’s forests to produce wood, both in the past and (probably) in the future. However, the increase in fellings over the last four decades has not kept up with this increase in potential production. This presents both challenges and opportunities for the long-term viability of forest management in Europe, which will be discussed in a later part of this report.
Figure 9 Trends in the comparison of fellings to increment in selected European countries from 1961 to 2000
Source: increment is derived from Gold (2003), Annex 5.3 and the statistics for fellings come from FAOSTAT roundwood production statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org) adjusted to fellings using conversion factors from the FRA (UN, 2003). Note: the Eastern Europe region excludes the Baltic States and four of the five countries of the former Yugoslavia. In addition, Turkey is excluded from the analysis due to the quality of woodfuel production statistics for that country. Fellings in the Russian Federation before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The previous section described some of the quantitative trends in Europe’s forests and briefly explained some of the underlying forces behind these changes. This section describes some of the qualitative changes in the forest resource that have taken place in recent years. Although many of these changes can not be quantified, the discussion presents some statistical information about selected issues.
Many aspects of forest quality are difficult to measure and subjective in nature. However, one aspect of forest quality that can be measured is forest health. Forest health can be assessed using a number of measures or indicators of vitality, such as attacks by pests and pathogens, defoliation and foliage discolouration and forest fires. Historical information about defoliation and forest fires is available for most countries in Europe and trends in these figures are presented here below.
Defoliation. In the late 1970s, the condition of tree crowns was observed to deteriorate in several forest areas of Europe. As a result of this decline being originally ascribed mainly to air pollution, the UNECE established the International Co-operative Programme on the Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP Forests) in 1985, under its Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. In co-operation with other UNECE and European Union (EU) programmes, ICP Forests presents scientific information and analysis of the effects on forests of air pollution and other environmental factors and this work has contributed to the design and implementation of a number of policies on atmospheric pollution in the EU.
Currently, 36 European countries participate in this exercise (as well as Canada and the United States of America). The monitoring of forest health in the UNECE is one of the world's largest biomonitoring systems, with large-scale monitoring in more than 6,000 plots and intensive monitoring in more than 860 plots in participating countries.
Figure 10 Trends in forest defoliation in Europe from 1992 to 2003
Source: derived from UN (2004).
Trends in forest defoliation in Europe are shown in Figure 10 for the period 1992 to 2003. The averages for each sub-region have been calculated by weighting the results for each country by their area of FOWL. Statistics for the Russian Federation are shown separately because only four observations are available for the period.
The extent of defoliation is divided into different defoliation classes and classes two to four represent defoliation of more than 25 percent of crown cover. Trees in these classes are generally referred to as “damaged”, as they represent trees where considerable defoliation has taken place.
These trends show no increase or decrease in defoliation at the European level over the last decade, although a slight upward trend can be observed for Western Europe and a much larger trend downwards appears for Eastern Europe , attributable to the end of the massive emissions of pollutants from industry and energy plants in the former centrally planed economies. The few available observations for the Russian Federation also suggest that defoliation there has not changed much over the last decade, although the number of observations is very small.
These broad trends mask a number of important differences at the level of individual countries and species groups and further detailed information about the results of these surveys can be obtained in Lorenz et al (2004). However, at the broad level, these trends show that the problem of defoliation in Europe does not appear to be getting any worse. The evidence of increased defoliation in earlier years is only partial and anecdotal, so this suggests that if there was a trend towards increased defoliation in earlier years, this upward trend has probably been halted. The causes of defoliation, previously attributed by many to air pollution alone are still not clear. Increasingly, defoliation appears to be one symptom of a number of different syndromes involving multiple causes, whose inter-relationship is not well understood.
Forest fires. Statistics on the number of forest fires and area burned have been collected by UNECE and FAO since the early 1950s. However, the collection of these statistics on an annual basis did not start until 1970 and a reasonably complete set of data for the countries outside Western Europe is only available from 1982 onwards. Based on these statistics, the trends in the area of forest fires since 1950 have been produced and are shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Trends in forest fires in Europe from 1950 to 2000
Source: UN (1999 and earlier).
At first glance, these statistics appear to show an upward trend in the area of FOWL affected by forest fires each year. However, this is largely due to the partial availability of forest fire statistics before 1982. Since 1982, there has been great variation in the area of forest fires in Europe each year, but no strong trend upwards or downwards.
At the sub-regional level there is also no strong trend upwards or downwards in these figures, although it is notable that the area burned in Western Europe is higher now than in earlier years. For instance, the average area burned in the 1970s was only 330,000 hectares per year, while that average area of forest fires since than has been around 520,000 hectares per year. This could be due to the greater use of forests by the public for recreation (i.e. fires started by humans), or it could simply be due to improvements in the monitoring and recording of forest fires.
Forest fires are caused by a mixture of human and natural factors and most of the variation from year to year can probably be attributed to short-term climatic changes that make forests more susceptible to fires. The importance of climate is also shown by the distribution of fires across Europe. Over the last decade, the warmer countries of Western Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) accounted for 95 percent of the area burned in Western Europe, while Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey accounted for 52 percent of the forest fires in Eastern Europe.
Since 1982, the average annual area burned in Europe has been 1.9 million hectares, with 1.3 million hectares of forest fires in the CIS sub-region (mostly in the Russian Federation), 510,000 hectares in Western Europe and 60,000 hectares in Eastern Europe. These figures amount to only a very small fraction of the total forest area (generally much less than one percent), although forest fires are important in certain countries (e.g. Italy, where one percent has been burned each year on average over the last decade, or Portugal, where the figure is three percent).
To conclude, these figures suggest that forest fires are generally not getting any worse in Europe, but remain important in a few specific countries. However, when taking into consideration the greater public interest in forests in recent years (and their greater use of forests), it could be said that the public’s perception of the problem has probably increased. There is also concern about the possible effect of climate change on the severity of forest fires, and on the relative lack of success in some countries of programmes to prevent forest fires e.g. by public education and by reducing the fuel load. Spectacular fires in Siberia and the Russian far East in 2003 were attributed to weather conditions as well as to illegal logging.
Trends in forest management can not be easily assessed or quantified, as measurement of the quality of forest management is quite subjective and attempts to measure this have only been developed in recent years. The previous section referred to changes in the intensity of forest management that have probably taken place in the past, based on the observed changes in forest area, growing stock and increment. Two other qualitative aspects of forest management that can be measured are the purpose or objectives of forest management and the standards of management in forests used for wood production.
Management objectives. Europe has a long history of managing forests for multiple objectives. For example in the FRA 1990, the following seven functions of forests were listed: wood production; protection; water; grazing (range); hunting; nature conservation; and recreation (UN, 1993) and countries were asked to assess the areas of forest where each of these functions were of high, medium or low importance as a management objective. Broadly speaking, wood production, hunting and recreation were of relatively high importance in Europe, while the other objectives were of more limited importance. It is not possible to identify trends in the importance of all of these functions, because the methodology used to assess management objectives was not repeated in the FRA 2000. However, information is available about the trends and current status of forest management with respect to some of these functions.
The FRA 2000 (UN, 2003) presents information about the area of FOWL managed primarily for soil protection at two different points in time (i.e. years). This information is given for the majority of European countries, using a wide range of different years as the two reference points for measurement. By interpolating and/or extrapolating the results for each country, it is possible to estimate a trend in this variable over the period 1980 to 2000 and these results are shown in Figure 12.
In Western Europe, the importance of soil protection has not increased by very much and the average is relatively low because soil protection is generally not considered to be an important objective in a few countries with large forest areas (e.g. Finland and Sweden). Soil protection is important in Spain, but Spain is not included in the European average shown in Figure 12 because a figure is only given for one year. (If Spain was included, the average for Europe would be significantly higher). The trend for Eastern Europe reflects a large increase in the importance of FOWL managed for soil protection in Turkey and the trend for the CIS sub-region largely reflects developments in the Russian Federation. To summarise these results, the figure shows that this function is quite important and has probably increased in importance by a small amount over the last two decades.
Figure 12 Trends in the proportion of FOWL managed primarily for soil protection in selected European countries from 1980 to 2000
Source: derived from UN (2000). Note: the figures for Western Europe exclude Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland; and the figures for Eastern Europe exclude Bosnia and Herzegovina and TFYR Macedonia.
The FRA 2000 also presents information about the area of FOWL where public access is legally allowed. Although this is not an indicator of where recreation is a forest management objective, it does give a more general indication of the importance of recreation as a use of Europe’s forests.
Figure 13 shows the proportion of FOWL in Europe where access is legally allowed, using figures from a range of years (in each country) during the 1990s. This shows that access to forests is allowed across the majority of the forest resource in Europe, particularly in the case of publicly owned forests. It is not possible to present trends in this variable, but an analysis of the descriptive information presented by countries showed that the area of forest where access is legally allowed has probably been quite stable. The restitution of forests in Eastern Europe (i.e. transfer of public forests back to their previous private owners) does not appear to have had much of an impact on forest access. In the few cases where access has been reduced, this has often been because the public have been excluded from areas that are important for nature conservation.
Combining this information with the results of the FRA 1990, it seems likely that forest recreation remains an important forest management objective in Europe and that the level of importance has not changed by very much.
Figure 13 The proportion of FOWL in Europe where public access is legally allowed
Source: derived from UN (2000). Note: the figures for Western Europe exclude Spain; and the figures for Eastern Europe exclude Serbia and Montenegro and Turkey.
The above text has described the trends and current status of two of the functions of forests in Europe. The FRA 2000 also presents some quantitative information about other forest functions, measured in terms of the volumes and/or values of outputs (e.g. values and volumes of wood and non-wood forest product production). Although it is not possible to assess this in terms of the relative importance of the different functions, it suggests that European forests are still managed for a wide variety of different objectives, depending on their ownership, location and type of forest.
Management for wood production. The quality of forest management in areas used for wood production is also difficult to assess. However, one indicator of this is the growth in the area of forests that have been certified by the two main certifying bodies operating in Europe (the Forest Stewardship Council or FSC and the Pan European Forest Certification Council or PEFC).
Figure 14 shows the proportion of the forest area in Europe that has been certified by the FSC and PEFC over the last decade. As this figure shows, the area of certified forests in Europe has increased significantly over the last decade, particularly in Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Eastern Europe.
These trends can not be used to suggest that the quality of forest management in Europe has increased over the last decade. However, these trends do suggest that it has been relatively easy for forest owners and managers to obtain certification over a significant part of the European forest estate. This, in turn, implies that the quality of forest management in Europe is generally quite high.
Figure 14 Recent trends in forest certification in Europe
Source: derived from WRI (2004) and PEFC (2004 and earlier).
Processed wood products are those products that are produced by the forest processing industry and are consumed by other industries outside the sector or consumers. At the broad level, these include: sawnwood; wood based panels; and paper and paperboard.3 Trends in the production and consumption of each of these products are described below and this section finishes with a description of some of the changes in the relative importance of these products over the last 40 years.
Trends in coniferous sawnwood production and consumption in Europe are shown in Figure 15. This figure shows a number of interesting changes that have taken place in the markets for coniferous sawnwood in Europe over the last 40 years.
Figure 15 Trends in production and consumption of coniferous sawnwood from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The first and probably most important feature of these trends is that Europe has changed from a situation of approximate balance in production and consumption over the period 1960 to 1990 to a situation of net exports from the region (to the rest of the World) over the last ten years. In 1990, European consumption exceeded production slightly and Europe was a net importing region. By 2000, the situation had changed to one where European production exceeded consumption by just over 10 million m3 (or around 10 percent of production). Furthermore, the level of net exports from Europe has continued to increase to around 15 million m3 in 2002.
Two main changes lie behind this development in production and consumption. First, production of coniferous sawnwood in Western Europe has increased more rapidly than consumption over the last ten years, significantly reducing net imports into the sub-region (from around 12 million m3 in 1990 to 4 million m3 in 2000 and approximately zero in 2002). Countries that have contributed most to this increase in production are the traditionally important producers in Western Europe such as: Austria; Finland; Germany; and Sweden. However, another notable development has been the increase in production in some countries with significant forest plantation resources (e.g. Ireland and the United Kingdom). Secondly, Eastern Europe has moved from a position of approximate balance in production and consumption (until 1990) to one where production exceeds consumption by 7 million m3 (or about one-third of production). The three Baltic States account for much of the growth in production in this sub-region. The CIS sub-region has always been a net exporter of coniferous sawnwood (at a level of just under 10 million m3) and this has not changed over the period.
The second interesting feature of this figure is that it shows the dramatic fall in production and consumption in the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions in the early-1990s and the degree to which they have recovered since then. In the case of Eastern Europe, production and consumption fell by about one-third in the early-1990s. Since then, production has recovered to a level of 20 million m3 in 2000 (around the same level as in 1990), but consumption in 2000 was only 13 million m3. In the CIS sub-region, the fall in production and consumption was even more dramatic (a fall of around three-quarters). However, production and consumption in both Eastern Europe and the CIS have been growing strongly in the first years of the twenty-first century.
These recent trends have led to changes in the relative importance of the three different sub-regions in the European market for coniferous sawnwood. Historically, Western Europe accounted for around 35 percent of European consumption and 30 percent of production, but now accounts for 65 percent and 75 percent of production and consumption respectively. Eastern Europe’s share of European consumption has remained relatively unchanged at around 12 percent, but the importance of production in this region has risen from around 12 percent of total European production in the period before 1990 to about 17 percent in 2000. The greatest change has occurred in the CIS sub-region, which used to account for the majority of production and consumption in Europe (around 60 percent of production and 55 percent of consumption up until 1990). In 2000, this sub-region accounted for 17 percent of production and 13 percent of consumption, which is about the same as the Eastern Europe sub-region.
The dramatic changes in the latter two sub-regions make it difficult to present useful information about historical growth rates in the markets for coniferous sawnwood in Europe. However, the trends in Western Europe have been more stable and it is possible to give an indication of recent growth trends in the other two sub-regions.
In Western Europe, production of coniferous sawnwood has grown consistently over the last 40 years at a rate of about 1.3 percent per year (or roughly 800,000 m3 per year). Average growth in consumption has been about 0.9 percent per year (or roughly 700,000 m3 per year). Other than short-term fluctuations, the trend in production and consumption in Western Europe appears quite stable. In Eastern Europe, growth in production and consumption was negligible over the period until 1990. Since 1995, production has grown by 5.3 percent per year (600,000 m3 per year), while consumption has grown by 6.4 percent per year (300,000 m3 per year). It seems likely that the positive trends in production and consumption in this sub-region will continue into the future. In the CIS countries, there was neither a positive or negative trend in production and consumption before 1990. The trends since 1995 still appear to be changing and it looks like the decline in production is starting to reverse and the trend in consumption may also reverse in the near future.
Figure 16 presents the trends in non-coniferous sawnwood production and consumption in Europe over the same period. This figure is similar in many respects to the previous figure, but also shows some subtle differences in the markets for this product.
The first notable feature of the non-coniferous sawnwood market is that Europe has always been a net importer of non-coniferous sawnwood and that the level of net imports has increased in recent years. This is mostly due to net imports of non-coniferous sawnwood into Western Europe (Eastern Europe is a small net exporter and the production and consumption are roughly in balance in the CIS sub-region).
One of the reasons for the increase in net imports is that production of non-coniferous sawnwood has declined in Western Europe while consumption has remained roughly constant. Net exports from Eastern Europe have increased in recent years (due to increased production) and have probably substituted for some production in Western Europe. However, this increase in net exports has not affected the position for Europe as a whole.
Figure 16 Trends in production and consumption of non-coniferous sawnwood from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
One of the reasons for net imports into Europe is the variety of species demanded in the markets for non-coniferous sawnwood. Consumption of non-coniferous sawnwood includes consumption of tropical non-coniferous sawnwood as well as sawnwood made from North American tree species. Although some of this demand is satisfied by importing roundwood and manufacturing the sawnwood in Europe, it seems likely that Europe will remain a net importer of sawnwood made from these species for the foreseeable future.
A second notable feature of Figure 16 is that the distribution of production and consumption across all three sub-regions is more even. Production in the CIS sub-region has declined from about half of the total in 1961 to one-quarter in 2000. Production in the rest of Europe in 2000 was divided equally between Western and Eastern Europe. Western Europe accounted for about half of all consumption in 2000, with the remainder shared equally between the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions.
As before, the figure shows the decline in production and consumption in the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions since 1990, although the longer trends in all three sub-regions show a long-term decline in the markets for this product. Broadly speaking the trends in production and consumption in the three sub regions are as follows.
In Western Europe, production of non-coniferous sawnwood has fallen over the last 40 years by about 0.9 percent per year (or roughly 60,000 m3 per year) on average, while consumption has grown by about 0.1 percent per year (or roughly 20,000 m3 per year). The trend appears to have changed slightly over time, with a higher decline in production and little or no growth in consumption in more recent years.
In Eastern Europe, there was steady positive growth in production and consumption of non-coniferous sawnwood up until 1985. By 1995, production and consumption had fallen by half, to levels lower than in 1961. However, since 1995, production and consumption have risen at an average annual growth rate of 6.9 percent and 5.2 percent respectively (equal to an annual increase of about 400,000 m3 and 200,000 m3).
In the CIS sub-region, the trend in production and consumption of non-coniferous sawnwood shows a persistent decline in this market, with the exception of a levelling-off of the trends in the 1980s. On average, production and consumption have declined each year by 3.1 percent and 3.3 percent respectively (equal to falls of about 330,000 m3 and 350,000 m3 respectively). Statistics from the most recent years suggest that production and consumption may be starting to level-off, but this is far from certain.
The wood based panels sector covers a variety of panel products that can be divided into the following three main types of product: fibreboard; particleboard; and plywood and veneer sheets. Fibreboard and particleboard can also be further sub-divided into panels with different properties and uses, such as: hardboard; medium density fibreboard (MDF); chipboard; and orientated strand board (OSB).
One of the most important differences between the various wood panels is the types of wood raw materials that can be used to manufacture each product. Fibreboard and particleboard are reconstituted panels and are manufactured from wood chips that can come from a variety of sources. Plywood and veneer sheets are manufactured from industrial roundwood and are usually made from larger sizes of roundwood (i.e. sawlogs and veneer logs).
Figure 17 shows the trend in fibreboard production and consumption in Europe over the last 40 years. In general, production in Europe has slightly exceeded consumption over most of the period, leading to a small amount of net exports. Production and consumption are currently in balance in Western Europe, although there have been years when consumption exceeded production. Eastern Europe has always been a small net exporter of fibreboard, while production and consumption in the CIS sub-region have been in balance or with a slight surplus of production over consumption. In total, the markets for fibreboard in Europe have expanded quite significantly over the last 40 years, from a level of production and consumption of around 2 million m3 in 1961 to production of 13 million m3 and consumption of 12 million m3 in 2000.
At the sub-regional level, production and consumption in Europe has been concentrated in Western Europe over much of the period, although the shares of all three sub-regions were quite even in the mid-1970s and 1980s. In the last decade, the fibreboard market in Western Europe has increased dramatically and the market in the CIS sub-region has declined. The market in Eastern Europe fell in the early-1990s, but has since recovered.
Figure 17 Trends in production and consumption of fibreboard from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
In Western Europe, production and consumption since 1961 have increased by 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent on average each year (equal to increases of around 210,000 m3 and 180,000 m3 respectively). However, there has been a structural change in this trend, with extremely rapid growth in the last few years. From 1992 to 2000, both production and consumption trebled from a level of 3 million m3 in 1992 to just over 9 million m3 in 2000.
In Eastern Europe, the long-terms trends in production and consumption have been similar to those in Western Europe, except that both fell during the early 1990s. Since 1992, the markets for fibreboard in this region have recovered and have been growing at an annual rate of 11.0 percent or 190,000 m3 (production) and 12.6 percent or 200,000 m3 (consumption).
In the CIS sub-region, the markets for fibreboard grew rapidly up until 1990, at which point this sub-region accounted for almost half of all fibreboard production and consumption in Europe. Since 1990, production and consumption fell by three-quarters, although a slight upward trend has appeared since 1995.
One of the main reasons behind the recent changes in the trends in Western Europe (and, to a lesser extent, Eastern Europe) has been the development of MDF. Large-scale production of MDF started in the mid-1980s in North America and Europe and this has developed to become one of the fastest growing wood product sectors in recent years. As Figure 17 shows, there was very little growth in fibreboard production and consumption in both of these sub-regions throughout the 1970s and 1980s. However, since 1990, there has been a renewed and rapid expansion of fibreboard markets and much of this new growth can be attributed to MDF. Statistics on MDF production and trade are only available from 1995 onwards, but they show quite clearly that most of the growth in the fibreboard sector has come from growth in this product category (see Figure 18). MDF currently only accounts for a modest share of fibreboard production and consumption in the CIS sub-region, but it can be expected that it will start to have an impact there as well in coming decades.
Figure 18 Changes in the composition of fibreboard production from 1995 to 2002
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org).
Historical trends in the production and consumption of particleboard are shown in Figure 19. To some extent, many of the main features of these trends are the same as those described above for fibreboard.
Production and consumption of particleboard in Europe as a whole has been roughly in balance until the last decade, when production has started to exceed consumption, leading to a small amount of net exports from the region (slightly more than 2 million m3 per year in 2000). Within Europe, Western and Eastern Europe are small net exporters, while production and consumption are roughly in balance in the CIS sub-region. Western Europe has always been the major producer and consumer of particleboard in Europe, accounting for almost 100 percent of the European market in 1961, falling to about 75 percent of the market in 2000. Overall, the market has grown from levels of consumption and production of around 3 million m3 in 1961 to production of 42 million m3 and consumption of 40 million m3 in 2000, making this the largest component of the wood based panel sector.
In Western Europe, apart from short-term fluctuations, the market for particleboard has grown persistently and with a relatively high growth rate. Since 1961, production and consumption have grown on average each year by 4.7 percent and 4.8 percent respectively (equal to increases of around 690,000 m3 and 620,000 m3 respectively), although growth may have slowed slightly in more recent years.
In Eastern Europe, the particleboard sector has also grown strongly at an average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent or 180,000 m3 (production and consumption). In contrast to many other components of the forest processing sector, the economic changes in the early-1990s did not have much of an impact on the particleboard sector in Eastern Europe, which suffered only slight falls in production and consumption in 1990.
The trend in the CIS sub-region matches that for the fibreboard sector, with strong growth up until 1990, when production and consumption fell by about three-quarters until 1995. Since 1996, recovery has been very strong in this sector, with production growing at an annual rate of 10.9 percent and consumption growing by 15.1 percent per year (equal to annual increases of about 260,000 m3 and 380,000 m3 per year respectively).
Figure 19 Trends in production and consumption of particleboard from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Trends in the production and consumption of plywood and veneer sheets since 1961 are shown in Figure 20. On average, veneer sheet production accounts for about 30 percent of total production of plywood and veneer sheets and this proportion has not changed over the period 1961 to 2000.
The production of veneer sheets is the first stage in the manufacturing of plywood, but the statistics for veneer sheet production exclude the production of veneer sheets carried-out as part of the plywood manufacturing process in a country. A proportion of the veneer sheets traded between countries could be used in plywood production (i.e. veneer sheets imported into a country could be used in that country’s plywood industry), but it is suspected that the amount of veneer sheets used in this way is very low. In stead, most veneer sheets are probably used in the furniture industry or to provide facing materials for other types of wood panel. Consequently, the amount of double-counting of production is believed to be quite low.
Figure 20 shows that plywood and veneer sheet consumption in Europe exceeds production by a considerable amount and that net imports of these products have grown over the last 40 years to about 1.7 million m3 in 2000. Over most of the last 40 years, production in Europe was divided as follows: 50 percent in Western Europe; 30 percent in CIS countries; and 20 percent in Eastern Europe. However, over the last decade, Western Europe’s share of production has increased slightly, while the shares held by the other two sub-regions has declined slightly. Western Europe has always accounted for the majority of plywood and veneer sheet consumption in Europe and Western Europe’s share of consumption has risen in recent years to 80 percent in 2000.
Figure 20 Trends in production and consumption of plywood and veneer sheets from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The high level of net imports into Europe is also due to Western Europe, which is a significant net importing region. Eastern Europe is and has always been a small net exporter of plywood and veneer sheets. In addition, the CIS sub-region has always been a net exporter, with net exports increasing significantly over the last few years, as consumption has fallen dramatically in this sub-region. As in the market for non-coniferous sawnwood, part of the reason for the high level of net imports of plywood and veneer sheets into Europe is the market’s demand for products made from tropical tree species.
In Western Europe, the long-term trends in production and consumption of plywood and veneer sheets are as follows. Production has risen at an annual rate of 0.7 percent per year (equal to an annual increase of about 50,000 m3), while consumption has increased by 1.9 percent or 110,000 m3 per year. Over the last decade, growth in consumption appears to have slowed slightly, but growth in production may have increased slightly.
In Eastern Europe, the long-term trends in production and consumption show little or no growth over the last 40 years. The market for plywood and veneer sheets in Eastern Europe has declined steadily since the mid-1970s and fell significantly in the early-1990s. There has been a slight recovery since then, but at a very low growth rate.
The long-term trends in the CIS sub-region also show little or no growth in this product category over the last four decades. Furthermore, in the period 1989 to 1995, production fell by half and consumption fell by three-quarters, which led to a significant increase in net exports from this sub-region. Since then, there has been strong growth in production and, to a lesser extent, consumption. Since 1995, production has grown by 11.1 percent per year (equal to about 180,000 m3 per year) and consumption has grown by 10.2 percent per year (80,000 m3 per year). Given that plywood and veneer sheets are usually made from large-sized roundwood and that this region has an abundance of large-sized trees, this indicates that the CIS sub- region may have a comparative advantage in the production of these products.
The paper and paperboard sector covers a wide variety of types and grades of paper. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the sector is divided into the following three main categories: newsprint; printing and writing paper; and other paper and paperboard. The first two categories are self-explanatory, while the last covers a mixture of different products such as: wrapping paper; tissue paper; paper used in the manufacturing of other industrial and consumer goods; and paper used to make boxes and sacks.
Figure 21 shows the historical trend in newsprint production and consumption over the last 40 years. As the figure shows, production of newsprint in Europe has exceeded consumption over most of the last 40 years, leading to a small amount of net exports from Europe. Furthermore, in recent years the level of net exports has increased slightly, amounting to between 0.5 million metric tonnes (MT) and 1.0 million MT per year.
Western Europe accounts for the majority of production and consumption of newsprint in Europe (80 percent of production and 84 percent of consumption in 2000) and has been a small net exporter of newsprint over most of the period. The CIS sub-region has been the next most important producer and consumer of newsprint, although consumption fell dramatically in the early 1990s, leading to a significant increase in net exports. Eastern Europe accounts for only a very small share of production and consumption in Europe. Eastern Europe has always been a net importer of newsprint and the level of net imports has increased slightly in recent years.
The long-term trends in production and consumption in Western Europe show persistent and sustained growth in this sector over the last 40 years. Production and consumption have both grown at an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent or about 140,000 MT per year.
In Eastern Europe, growth in the newsprint sector has also been sustained and was not affected very much by the economic changes in the early 1990s. Over the last 40 years, production and consumption have grown at an annual rate of 2.3 percent and 2.7 percent respectively (both equal to an increase of around 20,000 MT per year).
Figure 21 Trends in production and consumption of newsprint from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
As in many other sectors, the trends in production and consumption of newsprint in the CIS sub-region show sustained growth until the early 1990s, when production fell by half and consumption fell by three-quarters. Since 1995, there has been a rapid recovery in production, although consumption is still far below the level in 1990. From 1993, production has increased by 7.1 percent per year and consumption has increased by 8.3 percent per year (equal to average annual increases of 100,000 MT and 50,000 MT respectively). Given the large investments required for paper processing and the level of existing capacity in the CIS sub-region, it is perhaps not surprising that production has recovered quite quickly in this sector.
Figure 22 shows the trends in production and consumption of other paper and paperboard in Europe since 1961. Again, Western Europe accounts for the majority of production and consumption (around 85 percent of the total), although the other two sub-regions were growing in importance until 1990. Production and consumption have been in balance throughout most of the last 40 years, although production has exceeded consumption and led to some net exports from the region over the last decade. In 2000, these net exports amounted to 3 million MT. Western Europe is the major net exporter of other paper and paperboard, because production and consumption in the other two sub-regions are (and have always been) more or less equal.
In Western Europe, the long term trends in production and consumption of other paper and paperboard show sustained and relatively high rates of growth over the last 40 years. Production has increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent (or about 800,000 MT per year), while consumption has grown by 2.6 percent per year (equal to around 740,000 MT per year).
Production and consumption in Eastern Europe grew steadily until 1989, but then fell by about one-third from 1989 to 1991. Since 1991, production and consumption have returned to their previous levels of growth, with production growing by 3.5 percent per year (about 160,000 MT per year) and consumption growing by 4.8 percent per year (or 200,000 MT per year).
In the CIS sub-region, production and consumption both increased at a sustained and relatively high level of growth until 1990. Since 1990, both have fallen by around three-quarters and have only started to increase again in the last few years. The most recent statistics from 2002 suggest that a sustained recovery in this sector is now taking place.
Figure 22 Trends in production and consumption of other paper and paperboard from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 23 shows the trends in production and consumption of printing and writing paper in Europe since 1961. There are two very notable features of these trends compared with the trends for the rest of the paper and paperboard sector. Firstly, the historical growth in production and consumption of printing and writing paper has been much higher than growth in the other two sectors. Although this sector is not the largest component of the total paper and paperboard sector (it is second in importance after other paper and paperboard), it may soon become the most important if it continues to grow so rapidly.
The second notable point is that Europe is (and has always been) a significant net exporter of printing and writing paper, with production exceeding consumption by 5.5 million MT in 2000. All of this is due to Western Europe, which accounts for 95 percent of production and 90 percent of consumption in the region as a whole. Western Europe has always been a significant net exporter of printing and writing paper, while production and consumption in the other two regions have been roughly equal (although Eastern Europe has started to become a slight net importer in recent years).
The long-term trends in production and consumption of printing and writing paper in Western Europe show high levels of sustained growth over the last four decades, with production growing by 4.7 percent per year on average (around 700,000 MT per year) and consumption growing by 4.3 percent per year (or around 520,000 MT per year). These growth rates are far higher than those experienced in the other two sub-regions and exceed the long-term growth rates for other types of paper and paperboard.
In Eastern Europe, production and consumption of printing and writing paper grew modestly until 1989 when, as in many other sectors, there was a slight decline for three years. Since 1993, production and, in particular, consumption have recovered and started to grow very rapidly. The short-term trend in production and consumption since 1993 shows average annual growth in production of 10.3 percent (or about 140,000 MT per year) and very high growth in consumption of 11.9 percent per year (or 190,000 MT per year).
Figure 23 Trends in production and consumption of printing and writing paper from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The trends in production and consumption of printing and writing paper in the CIS sub-region are similar to those described above. After a period of modest growth up until 1990, production and consumption fell by three quarters from 1990 to 1995 and have only just started to recover. Of all of the three paper and paperboard sectors, this appears to be the sector that has had the slowest recovery in the CIS sub-region after the economic changes of the early 1990s.
Previous parts of this section have examined the trends in individual product categories by sub-region and for Europe as a whole. This final part examines how these trends have affected the relative importance of different types of processed wood product across the region.
For the solid wood products (sawnwood and wood based panels), the different rates of growth in the various product categories show that wood based panels are becoming increasingly important, while sawnwood is declining in importance.
Figure 24 Trends in the consumption of sawnwood and wood based panels in Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 24 shows the trend in consumption of solid wood products over the last 40 years for the whole of Europe. It also shows how the composition of consumption has changed over time in terms of the relative importance of different products. Broadly speaking there have been two changes.
Firstly, within the sawnwood sector, the relative importance of coniferous sawnwood has increased slightly, while non-coniferous sawnwood has declined (i.e. the share of non-coniferous sawnwood in total sawnwood consumption has fallen over time). In the region as a whole, the increased importance of coniferous sawnwood has been only slight, with coniferous sawnwood accounting for 81 percent of all sawnwood consumption in 1961 and 83 percent of consumption in 2000. However, at the sub-regional level, the change has been more noticeable in Western Europe, where the share of coniferous sawnwood in total sawnwood consumption has increased from 80 percent to 85 percent over the same period.
Conversely, the relative importance of coniferous sawnwood has declined in the other two sub-regions. In Eastern Europe, there appears to have been a steady and gradual long-term shift from coniferous sawnwood to non-coniferous sawnwood (but by only relatively small amounts). In the CIS sub-region, the trend was also towards more consumption of coniferous sawnwood until the early-1990s when production and consumption in this sector fell by much more than in the non-coniferous sawnwood sector.
Given that Europe is a net importer of non-coniferous sawnwood and that non-coniferous sawnwood accounts for less than 20 percent of total sawnwood consumption, this indicates that production of non-coniferous sawnwood is of only limited and declining importance. It is difficult to say whether this trend will continue in the future, but given the much longer time period generally required to produce non-coniferous sawlogs, it suggests that the prospects for this particular component of the sector are quite limited.
Figure 25 Trends in the importance of reconstituted panels from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The second and more noticeable feature of these trends is the rising importance of wood based panels and, in particular, the reconstituted panels (fibreboard and particleboard). Figure 25 shows reconstituted panel consumption as a proportion of total solid wood product consumption from 1961 to 2000. This figure shows quite clearly that growth in the consumption of reconstituted panels has exceeded growth in the other components of this sector (sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets) and that reconstituted panels have increased their share of the solid wood product market from around three percent in 1961 to 28 percent in 2000.
To some extent, reconstituted panels can substitute for sawnwood and plywood in many main end-uses (e.g. construction and furniture manufacturing). Therefore, it is likely that some of the growth in reconstituted panel consumption has come at the expense of sawnwood consumption. Given the different raw material requirements for reconstituted panels (as opposed to sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets), this trend has had a profound impact on the demand for wood raw materials and is likely to continue to do so in the future.
In the paper and paperboard sector, substitution between the three different product categories is much more limited, so changes in the relative importance of each of them is due more to the different ways that they respond to changes in economic growth and other socio-economic variables.
Figure 26 shows the trend in consumption of paper and paperboard in Europe from 1961 to 2000 and the distribution of consumption across thee three main product categories. This figure shows that consumption of paper and paperboard has grown consistently over the last 40 years and at a relatively high rate of growth. It also shows the growing importance of printing and writing paper referred to earlier.
Figure 26 Trends in the consumption of paper and paperboard in Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The figure above reflects the trends in Western Europe, because this sub-region accounts for the majority of paper and paperboard consumption in Europe. However, at the sub-regional level, the trends in the other two sub-regions are quite similar to this. The main difference is that consumption of other paper and paperboard is relatively more important in Eastern Europe and CIS countries, while consumption of printing and writing paper is less important. However, in the last decade, consumption of printing and writing paper in Eastern Europe has started to increase dramatically and the pattern of consumption in this sub-region is starting to look similar to that in Western Europe.
The materials used to manufacture processed wood products comprise a wide variety of raw materials, including industrial roundwood (in various forms) and recycled materials (such as wood residues and recovered paper). In addition, as part of the production of paper and paperboard, wood pulp is produced as an intermediate product, usually as part of an integrated pulp and papermaking operation. Although analyses of trends in forest products markets tend to focus mainly on the production and consumption of raw materials and processed products, it is also important to analyse the production and consumption of wood pulp, because there is significant international trade in this intermediate product.
Figure 27 The flow of raw materials and intermediate products in the forest processing sector
Note: raw materials and intermediate products are shown in shaded boxes. The thin lines represent disaggregation of a broader product category (shown in bold) into its components (e.g. wood pulp is further subdivided into four different types of wood pulp). The thick lines represent flows of materials through the system. The black lines represent flows where data is readily available, while the grey lines represent flows where information is less reliable. Product categories shown in italics are products that will not be included in the analysis due to lack of information or their relatively low importance. The flow of recovered paper back into the papermaking process is shown as a broken line, because this product is not used directly in the production of paper, but the statistics on recovered fibre pulp production are weak. It should also be noted that all of these products are traded internationally and that the flows into each box reflect the production of each product, while the flows out of each box represent consumption of each product. Thus, for example, it is possible for a country that imports a lot of paper, to produce more recovered paper than original paper production in that country.
The complexity of the flows of raw materials from the forest (and elsewhere) into the wood processing sector is shown in Figure 27. In this figure, raw materials and intermediate products are shown in shaded boxes. Due to the limitations of data, the analysis here focuses on three main raw materials and intermediate products, namely: industrial roundwood (which comprises sawlogs and veneer logs, pulpwood and other industrial roundwood); wood pulp (including the three main types of wood pulp used for papermaking) and recovered paper.
Wood residues and wood chips and particles4 are very important components of the raw material supply in Europe, but information about the production of these materials has only been collected in recent years (see Table 5) and is very partial. An analysis of the utilisation of these materials will be presented in Section 2.5, where the wood raw material balance will be examined. Another source of raw materials for the wood processing sector is recovered wood products, but this is also excluded from the analysis here due to a lack of information.
At the broadest level, roundwood is subdivided into industrial roundwood and wood fuel (which will be examined in a later section). Industrial roundwood is further subdivided into sawlogs and veneer logs, pulpwood and other industrial roundwood.5 The first two subdivisions cover the roundwood that is used in the forest processing sector. Each of these product categories can also be subdivided into species groups (e.g. coniferous and non-coniferous).
Table 5 Availability of production and trade statistics for wood raw materials
Product category |
Production statistics |
Trade statistics | |||
1961 - 1991 |
1992 - 1997 |
1998 and after |
1961 - 1989 |
1990 and after | |
Roundwood |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
Industrial roundwood |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
Coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
x | |
Non-coniferous tropical |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
x | |
Non-coniferous other |
x |
x |
x |
x | |
Sawlogs and veneer logs |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Non-coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Pulpwood and particles |
x |
x |
|||
Coniferous |
x |
x |
|||
Non-coniferous |
x |
x |
|||
Pulpwood, round and split |
x |
x |
|||
Coniferous |
x |
||||
Non-coniferous |
x |
||||
Other industrial roundwood |
x |
x |
x |
x |
|
Coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
||
Non-coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
||
Wood fuel |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
Coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
||
Non-coniferous |
x |
x |
x |
||
Other solid wood raw materials |
|||||
Chips and particles |
x |
x |
x | ||
Wood residues |
x |
x |
x |
x | |
Note: “x” indicates that statistics for a product category are available for a specific time period, “n.a.” = not applicable. “Other solid wood raw materials” is not a standard definition, but is used here to indicate the sum of chips and particles plus wood residues.
Although statistics have been collected for many of the different subdivisions of industrial roundwood (e.g. product type and species group), there have been a number of changes in definitions over the last 40 years (see Table 5) that make it difficult to analyse the trends in individual components of industrial roundwood production and consumption. For example, production of pulpwood was combined with the production of wood particles (chips) until 1998, when these two products were clearly separated in production statistics. In particular, the changes in trade statistics (in 1990) - from subdivisions of industrial roundwood based on product type to subdivisions based on species groups - make it impossible to analyse consumption in any detail. Therefore, this section analyses trends in production and consumption of all industrial roundwood and trends in production (only) of the individual components of industrial roundwood.
Figure 28 Trends in production and consumption of industrial roundwood from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The historical trend in production and consumption of industrial roundwood in Europe is shown in Figure 28. As the figure shows, production and consumption across the whole of Europe has been roughly in balance for the last 40 years, with differences between production and consumption generally amounting to no more than 5 million m3 or around one percent of the total market size.
At the sub-regional level, Western Europe has always been a small net importer of industrial roundwood, while the CIS countries have always been small net exporters. However, this does not imply that all net exports from CIS countries were sent to Western Europe, because Western Europe imports a relatively small amount of tropical industrial roundwood and the CIS countries (notably the Russian Federation) also export industrial roundwood to Asia. Net imports into Western Europe have increased in recent years, with the majority of this increase coming from CIS countries and Eastern Europe (where production and consumption were in balance until the early 1990s).
Until 1990, the CIS sub-region accounted for about half of all production and consumption of industrial roundwood, Western Europe accounted for about 35 percent and Eastern Europe accounted for the remaining 15 percent. Since the economic changes in the early 1990s, the share of production and consumption in CIS countries has fallen dramatically, such that Western Europe now accounts for about 60 percent of European production and consumption, while the remaining 40 percent is divided roughly equally between the other two sub-regions.
The long-term trends in production and consumption in Western Europe show persistent and sustained growth over the last 40 years, with average annual growth in production of 0.9 percent (or an increase of about 1.8 million m3) and growth in consumption of 1.0 percent per year (equal to about 2.4 million m3). The trends in production and consumption have been fairly stable over the period, although there have been some sudden changes due to natural events (e.g. the sudden increase in production in 1990 due to the salvaging of storm-damaged roundwood). It also appears that the rate of growth may have increased slightly in more recent years, perhaps due to the maturation of forest plantations in some West European countries.
In Eastern Europe, the long-term trends in production and consumption match those in Western Europe, with growth of about one percent per year. However, as in other sectors, the trends in production and consumption of industrial roundwood in Eastern Europe display three distinctly different phases. Firstly, from 1960 to 1985, growth was stable but at a relatively modest rate of increase. From 1985 to 1992, production and consumption declined as these countries started the process of economic reform. Since 1992, production and consumption have grown much more rapidly, with annual growth in production of 5.7 percent (or an increase of about 4.6 million m3) and growth in consumption of 5.2 percent per year (equal to about 3.8 million m3). The industrial roundwood sector was the first part of the forest sector to recover in these countries and continues to grow very strongly.
The trends in the CIS sub-region are also similar to the trends in other parts of the forest sector in this sub-region. The trends in production and consumption were quite flat until 1990, when both production and consumption fell by two-thirds over the period 1990 to 1994. Since 1994, there appears to have been a modest recovery in industrial roundwood production but little growth in consumption, leading to an increase in net exports of industrial roundwood from the CIS sub-region.
For Europe as a whole, the trends in the overall composition of industrial roundwood production are shown in Figure 29. Currently, sawlogs and veneer logs account for about 55 percent of all industrial roundwood production (with coniferous sawlogs and veneer logs accounting for 45 percent of the total), pulpwood accounts for about 40 percent of production and other industrial roundwood accounts for the remaining five percent.
The trends in the composition of industrial roundwood production over the last 40 years are as follows. Firstly, the production of other industrial roundwood has declined significantly, both in relative and absolute terms. In 1960, other industrial roundwood production amounted to about 100 million m3 per year or about 20 percent of total production. By 2000, it had declined to only 30 million m3 per year. This decline is mostly due to the fall in production in the CIS sub-region, although production of other industrial roundwood has also declined in both of the other two sub-regions. These declines in production can probably be attributed, in some part, to the reduction in deep mining and the substitution of other devices for wooden pit props in most countries in the region.
In contrast, pulpwood production has increased dramatically over the period, both in relative and absolute terms. In 1960, annual production of pulpwood amounted to about 90 million m3 or roughly 18 percent of total production: less pulpwood was produced than “other industrial wod” such as pitprops (a strategic material at the time). By the year 2000, this production had doubled to 180 million m3, making this the fastest growing component of industrial roundwood production.
Coniferous sawlog and veneer log production accounts for the majority of sawlog and veneer log production in Europe and the trend in this sector largely reflects the trend in the CIS sub-region. Production of coniferous sawlogs and veneer logs in Europe increased slowly up until the early 1990s then fell by about one-third in the early 1990s. More recently, production in this sector has started to recover. In contrast, production of non-coniferous sawlogs and veneer logs has been fairly stable over the period, at around 50 million m3 per year to 60 million m3 per year over most of the period.
Figure 29 Trends in the composition of industrial roundwood production in Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The figure above masks a number of subtle differences in the trends in industrial roundwood production in each of the three different European sub-regions, so the same information is presented and analysed for each of the three sub-regions below.
Figure 30 shows the trends in industrial roundwood production in Western Europe from 1961 to 2000. The first noticeable feature of this figure is that pulpwood production accounts for a significant share of total production, which is compatible with the forest management and harvesting practices that are common throughout most countries in this sub-region.
Figure 30 Trends in the composition of industrial roundwood production in Western Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org).
In terms of growth, production of coniferous sawlogs and veneer logs has increased by about 1.5 percent per year, leading to a doubling of production over the period, from 72 million m3 in 1960 to 147 million m3 in 2000. Production of pulpwood has increased at a slightly lower rate of one percent per year, from 61 million m3 in 1961 to 95 million m3 in 2000. As noted above, production of non-coniferous sawlogs and veneer logs has remained roughly constant in Western Europe at around 20 million m3 per year, while production of other industrial roundwood has fallen by about half from 19 million m3 in 1960 to 8 million m3 in 2000.
Figure 31 shows the trends in industrial roundwood production in the CIS sub-region from 1961 to 2000. In this region, it is noticeable that pulpwood production accounts for a much smaller share of total production, averaging about 16 percent of total production over the last four decades.
The figure shows that most of the fall in total production in the early 1990s was due to falls in production of coniferous roundwood and other industrial roundwood. Until 1990, coniferous industrial roundwood accounted for slightly over half of all industrial roundwood production, at around 140 million m3 to 150 million m3. From 1994 onwards, this has fallen to under 50 million m3. Similarly, other industrial roundwood accounted for about 30 percent of total production until the early 1990s, since when it has only accounted for around 10 percent of total production.
Production of non-coniferous roundwood has always been less important in the CIS sub-region, accounting for about 10 percent of total production. Production of non-coniferous roundwood also fell in the early 1990s, but only by about 50 percent. In contrast to this, the importance of pulpwood production has actually increased in recent years in absolute and relative terms. In 1961, pulpwood production was around 17 million m3 or seven percent of total production. The importance of pulpwood production increased gradually until 1990 then fell by about half until 1994. Since 1994, there has been a rapid increase in the production of pulpwood, which amounted to around 49 million m3 or 42 percent of total production in 2000.
Figure 31 Trends in the composition of industrial roundwood production in the CIS sub-region from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the CIS sub-region before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 32 shows the trends in industrial roundwood production in Eastern Europe from 1961 to 2000. Here, the most noticeable feature of these trends is how rapidly the production of industrial roundwood has recovered after the economic reforms of the early 1990s. To some extent, the increases in production at the end of the 1990s can be attributed to two countries, namely Estonia and Latvia.
Another feature of these trends is that the balance in production between sawlogs and veneer logs and pulpwood has shifted over the period from a greater emphasis on sawlog and veneer log production at the start of the period towards a higher proportion of pulpwood production in more recent years. Indeed, in 2000, pulpwood production amounted to 35 million m3 (34 percent of total production), while coniferous sawlog and veneer log production amounted to 40 million m3 (38 percent of total production).
In contrast to the other European sub-regions, the production of non-coniferous roundwood has also increased over the period, from 10 million m3 (17 percent of the total) in 1960 to 19 million m3 (18 percent of the total) in 2000. However, as in the other sub-regions, the importance of other industrial roundwood has declined, from 15 million m3 (25 percent of the total) in 1960 to 10 million m3 (10 percent of the total) in 2000.
Figure 32 Trends in the composition of industrial roundwood production in Eastern Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for Eastern Europe before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The total production of wood pulp encompasses the production of a number of different types of wood pulp with different properties and characteristics. These are blended in the papermaking process to produce different types, grades and qualities of paper. In addition, some types of wood pulp are not used for papermaking and, conversely, some other types of pulp are used to make paper. At the broadest level, wood pulp can be divided into four main types: dissolving wood pulp; mechanical wood pulp; semi-chemical wood pulp; and chemical wood pulp. The latter three are used for papermaking. In addition, other fibre pulp (made from non-wood fibres such as grasses, agricultural waste and cotton) is used to produce some types of paper.
Figure 33 shows the historical trend in production and consumption of wood pulp in Europe from 1961 to 2000. As the figure shows, consumption has always exceeded production in Europe (leading to net imports into the region) and this difference has increased throughout the last four decades. Western Europe accounts for most of these net imports, accounting for 80 percent of total production and 84 percent of total consumption in the region and net imports of over 6 million MT in 2000. Eastern Europe is a very small net importer of wood pulp, with production of 3.4 million MT and consumption of 4.1 million MT in 2000. The CIS sub-region is a very small net exporter, with production of 5.9 million MT and consumption of 4.4 million MT in 2000.
The significance of these trends is that, although Europe is not a major importer of industrial roundwood, a proportion of the wood fibre used to manufacture forest products in Europe is imported in the form of wood pulp.
Figure 33 Trends in production and consumption of total wood pulp from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
At the regional level, production and consumption increased over the period 1961 to 1989, but have not shown a sustained positive growth trend since then. However, this is largely due to recent declines in production and consumption in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region offsetting continued growth in Western Europe.
In Western Europe, production and consumption of wood pulp has growth consistently over the last four decades, with average annual growth rates of 1.8 percent for production (900,000 MT) and 2.2 percent for consumption (1 million MT). Thus, production has doubled over the last four decades and consumption has more than doubled. Visual inspection of Figure 33 suggests that the trend in production growth may have declined very slightly over the last decade, but the trend in consumption growth does not appear to have changed.
In Eastern Europe, production and consumption grew at much more modest growth rates from 1961 to 1990, at around one percent per year. From 1990 to 1994, production and consumption fell by around half, but both have since recovered to the levels of 1990. Considering the trends in pulpwood production shown above, there are certainly sufficient raw material supplies to maintain a high rate of growth in wood pulp production in the future, although much will depend on the cost-competitiveness of wood pulp production in this sub-region and the competition for this small sized roundwood from other sectors.
In the CIS sub-region, there was very strong growth in production and consumption of wood pulp from 1961 to 1989, with both growing at around four percent per year. In the early 1990s, both production and consumption fell by around two-thirds. Since 1994, production has returned to a high growth rate of 6.2 percent per year, but consumption has not increased at all.
The trends in total pulp production and consumption are largely determined by the two most important types of pulp, which are mechanical wood pulp and chemical wood pulp. Production and consumption of dissolving wood pulp and other fibre pulp have never been very important and have declined over the last four decades to less than one million MT in 2000. In simple terms, the wood fibre that is used to make dissolving wood pulp (and thus, does not go into papermaking) is replaced by the other fibres (from outside the forest sector) used to make other fibre pulp. Similarly, the semi-chemical wood pulp sector is quite insignificant, accounting for less than five percent of wood pulp production and less than five percent of the pulp used to make paper. Europe is a small net importer of semi-chemical wood pulp, but production and consumption of this product have been constant at around two million MT since 1970. Thus, the trends in these three product categories have almost no impact on the raw material balance within the forest sector.
Figure 34 Trends in production and consumption of mechanical wood pulp from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The trends in the production and consumption of mechanical wood pulp in Europe are shown in Figure 34. This shows that production and consumption in Europe have always been roughly in balance. It also shows that Western Europe accounts for the majority of production and consumption (around 90 percent). In Europe as a whole, the same trend as before is visible, with strong growth until 1990, then no visible upward growth trend thereafter. As before, this is due to declines in the CIS and Eastern Europe sub-regions offsetting continued upward growth in Western Europe.
In Western Europe, production and consumption of mechanical wood pulp have grown by 2.1 percent per year on average (equal to an increase of about 200,000 MT per year) since 1961. Again, it appears that growth may have reduced significantly over the last decade. There has been almost no growth in this sector in Eastern Europe. In the CIS sub-region, growth in production and consumption matched that in Western Europe until 1990, but production and consumption have not recovered since the fall of 50 percent in the early 1990s.
Figure 35 Trends in production and consumption of chemical wood pulp from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The trends for chemical wood pulp production and consumption are shown in Figure 35. This is by far the largest component of total wood pulp production and consumption and this product is largely responsible for the net imports of wood pulp into Europe. Again, Western Europe accounts for the majority of production and consumption of this product, with a 77 percent share of total European production and an 83 percent share of consumption.
In Western Europe, production has increased by 2.0 percent per year (about 400,000 MT) or more than doubled from 1961 to 2000. Consumption has increased by 2.5 percent (about 500,000 MT), leading to a trebling of consumption over the same period. In contrast to mechanical pulp, these strong growth trends have continued throughout the whole of the period.
These differences in production and consumption growth have led to the situation where net imports now account for 20 percent of consumption in Western Europe (or about 6 million MT), with an increase in net imports of around 100,000 MT every year.
The trends for Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region are similar to those described previously, with very little growth in Eastern Europe and strong growth followed by collapse in the CIS sub-region. However, growth in production and consumption in both of these sub-regions appears to have recovered somewhat in recent years.
The other major source of fibre used for papermaking is recovered or recycled paper and the trends in production and consumption of this product are shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36 Trends in production and consumption of recovered paper from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
This figure shows that, of all the sources of fibre used for papermaking, recovered paper is the largest (by weight) and has increased the most over the last 40 years. However, high levels of collection and utilisation of recovered paper only exist in Western Europe (which accounts for around 90 percent of production and consumption in Europe as a whole). In the other two sub-regions, the relative importance of recovered paper is much less and the papermaking industry in these countries still relies largely on wood pulp for their raw material needs.
In Western Europe, production and consumption of recovered paper have increased by around five percent on average each year. Production has increased by slightly more than consumption in the last five years, resulting in a very small amount of net exports of recovered paper. In addition, it appears that growth in production and consumption of recovered paper may have increased very slightly over the last decade.
In Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region, statistics on recovered paper are only available from 1970 onwards. Since 1970, production of recovered paper increased by 2.3 percent per year in Eastern Europe and consumption increased by 2.8 percent. This growth has been sustained over the period and was not affected very much by the economic changes in the early 1990s. In the CIS sub-region, growth was slightly higher, but both production and consumption fell by half in the early 1990s. However, since 1995, production and consumption appear to have returned to their previous growth rates of around three percent per year.
The two previous sections have described the trends in the production and consumption of processed forest products (i.e. the outputs of the processing sector) and the raw materials and intermediate products used to produce them (i.e. the inputs to the processing sector). These two major components of the forest sector are linked through the processing technologies that are used to convert the latter into the former.
The raw material balance compares the derived demand for inputs to the processing sector with the production of those inputs. It can be used to show how changes in the markets for outputs lead to changes in the derived demand for inputs and how the mixture of inputs has altered over time due to these changes and changes in resource availability. It can also be used to show how changes in technology have altered the relationship between inputs and outputs in the past, or to explore the effect of such changes in the future.
The following text examines the trends in the raw material balance in Europe over the last 40 years. It starts with a brief discussion of processing technology and the impact of changes in technology on the raw material balance. It then presents the derived demand for inputs, based on the production of processed forest products in Europe and expressed in WRME. Finally, the production and consumption of inputs is compared with the derived demand for inputs, showing how the importance of different types of input has changed over time.
Improvements in technology can have a significant impact on the sustainability and economic viability of the forest sector. Technology affects all stages of the production chain, from the forest to the end-user. Thus, for example, there can be technological improvements in tree breeding, silviculture, harvesting, processing, or in the utilisation of the final product. Technological improvements can also benefit the sector in different ways, such as: reducing costs or labour inputs; increasing the amount or value of product that can be made from a given level of inputs; altering the composition of required inputs from high-cost to low-cost sources; or expanding the range of products that can be made from wood.
Improvements in all of these areas have probably occurred in the forest sector in most European countries over the last 40 years. However, the analysis here will focus on two main aspects of technological change in the sector, notably changes in the conversion factors (amount of wood raw material required to produce one unit of output) and changes in the composition of inputs used in the sector.
FAO-UNECE surveys of conversion factors in Europe were stopped in the mid-1980s, due to the difficulties of collecting this information. Therefore, it is not possible to examine trends in conversion factors directly. However, it is possible to examine the conversion factors for some products indirectly, by comparing the trends in raw material consumption and processed product production.
Figure 37 shows the trends in product recovery for sawnwood and plywood production in Europe from 1961 to 1989. These were calculated by dividing sawnwood and plywood production by the apparent consumption of sawlogs and veneer logs in each year of the period. The trends shown in the figure stop at 1989, because sawlogs and veneer logs are not identified in international trade statistics after this year (and, hence, apparent consumption could not be calculated).
Firstly, the figure shows one of the problems with this approach to estimating conversion factors. The sudden increase in product recovery in the CIS sub-region in 1965 occurs because a greater share of industrial roundwood production was suddenly classified as “other industrial roundwood” rather than “sawlogs and veneer logs” in that year, but sawnwood and plywood production (and industrial roundwood trade) did not change by very much. Given this sudden unexplained shift, it seems likely that the figures for the CIS sub-region are not a very reliable indicator of the trend or level of product recovery (although the figures from the 1980s seem more reasonable).
Figure 37 Trends in product recovery in the sawnwood and plywood sectors from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
For Western and Eastern Europe the trends look more plausible. In Western Europe, the trend shows that product recovery has stayed roughly the same or, maybe, declined slightly over the period. Although this might suggest that technology has not led to any improvements in product recovery, it should be noted that the average size (i.e. diameter) of logs used in the sawnwood and plywood sectors has probably fallen over the same period, due to a reduction in the rotation ages commonly used in intensively managed forests and an increase in the proportion of wood production coming from intensively managed forests (as opposed to more “natural” forests). Thus, it is likely that there have been technological improvements, but that the benefits of these changes have resulted in a lowering in the quality (i.e. size) of logs required by the industry rather than an increase in product recovery. Similarly, it appears that product recovery in Eastern Europe has not changed over the period, possibly for the same reasons explained above.
Comparing between the sub-regions, product recovery in the late 1980s was 54 percent in Western Europe, 68 percent in the CIS sub-region and 64 percent in Eastern Europe (and 62 percent for Europe as a whole). Alternatively, these figures can be expressed as the amount of wood raw material input required to produce one unit of output, to give the figures: 1.86; 1.48; 1.56; and 1.62 respectively.
The relatively low product recovery rate in Western Europe is probably due to the relatively small log size. This reflects the predominance of production from Nordic countries in this sub-region and the relatively high share of production from forest plantations in the total. Relatively small log sizes might be expected in the Nordic countries (where trees grow slowly) and from forest plantations (where investment costs tend to encourage early clear-felling).
Until recently, forest management in Eastern Europe tended to favour longer rotation ages and less intensive management, which would tend to result in larger log sizes at the time of harvesting. Although technology in the processing sector is likely to be behind that in Western Europe, larger average log sizes would offset this effect and could explain the relatively higher rates of product recovery in this sub-region. The same reasoning could apply to the CIS sub-region, where harvesting in natural or “old-growth” forests would probably result in relatively large log sizes.
Unfortunately it is not possible to perform this type of analysis for pulpwood, because pulpwood is used to manufacture a range of very different products (reconstituted panels, pulp and paper) and other non-forest materials are used in the production of these products. However, there have been technological advances in these industries over the last 40 years that have probably led to improvements in product recovery (e.g. the development of closed-cycle pulping technology).
In the reconstituted panel and pulp and paper industries, a more important technological development over the last 40 years has been the increased use of residues and recycled materials in the production process. These non-forest sources of raw materials reduce the dependence of the industry on pulpwood and enable the same piece of wood or fibre to be used several times over. Implicitly, this increases product recovery (in terms of the pulpwood needed to produce a given amount of product) and increases the sustainability of production.
Information about the production of residues has only been collected recently and the available statistics are still partial and probably unreliable. However, statistics about wastepaper recovery are available from the early 1960s for Western Europe and from 1970 for the rest of Europe and they have been used to produce Figure 38. This shows the rate of wastepaper recovery in Europe, calculated as the production of recovered paper (i.e. the amount of wastepaper recovered) divided by total paper and paperboard consumption.
For Europe as a whole, wastepaper recovery has increased from around 25 percent of consumption in 1970 to just under 50 percent of consumption in 2000. In particular, there has been a more rapid increase in the recovery of wastepaper in the last ten years compared with the earlier part of the period. This can be attributed to environmental (i.e. recycling) policies introduced in many countries in the 1990s, which have subsidised and encouraged the collection and re-use of wastepaper.
The trend in wastepaper recovery in Western Europe accounts for most of the trend for the region as a whole, due to the size of the paper market in this sub-region. In Western Europe, wastepaper recovery remained at around 25 percent for most of the 1960s and then gradually increased to 35 percent in 1990. In the last decade it has increased to reach over 50 percent by the year 2000. The high level of wastepaper recovery in Western Europe is no doubt due to the environmental policies in this sub-region, but it also reflects the huge demand for wastepaper from the paper industry in this sub-region. Thus the expansion of waste paper use is both due to “supply push” (by environment policies and other policy encouragements) and “demand pull” (recovered fibre is a cheap raw material, increasingly acceptable for a wide variety of technical uses)
In Eastern Europe, wastepaper recovery increased slightly in the 1970s, but has remained at between 30 percent and 35 percent for most of the last 20 years. This lower level of wastepaper recovery probably reflects the relatively low level of demand for wastepaper in this sub-region, due to the quite small number of pulp mills there.
The trend for wastepaper recovery in the CIS sub-region is most interesting of all. It shows that wastepaper recovery increased from less than 15 percent in 1970 to around 30 percent in the late 1980s. Since 1990, it has increased significantly to reach about 42 percent in 2000. This increase has occurred because, while the consumption of paper in this sub-region has declined dramatically over the last decade (by about three-quarters), the production of recovered paper has fallen by much less than this. This suggests that the demand for wastepaper from pulp mills has not been strongly affected by the decline in domestic consumption. Given the general economic downturn in this sub-region, it also implies that the business of collecting wastepaper has remained quite attractive, possibly due to the relatively low capital costs generally required in the recycling sector.
Figure 38 Trends in wastepaper recovery 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
There is a limit to the proportion of paper and paperboard consumption that can be recycled. This is because certain types of paper (e.g. household and sanitary papers) are not easy to collect. However, it appears that this limit has not been reached yet, although it must be near in some countries, such as the Netherlands which has an urban, environmentally aware population, and supportive policies in place. Furthermore, with the increasing importance of printing and writing papers and packaging materials in total paper and paperboard consumption, it seems likely that wastepaper recovery could continue to increase in future years.
Another factor that limits the potential for wastepaper recovery is the degree of urbanisation in a country. With higher rates of urbanisation, the costs of wastepaper recovery are generally lower and higher rates of recovery can usually be achieved. This analysis shows that there is considerable scope to increase wastepaper recovery in Eastern Europe and this may be supported by the gradual economic development and urbanisation that is expected to take place in some of these countries in the future.
The total wood raw material demand in Europe has been calculated by multiplying the production of processed forest products in different sectors by the amount of wood required to produce those products (WRME). The conversion factors used to convert from the amount of production to the amount of wood required were based on the results of the last FAO-UNECE conversion factor survey (in the mid-1980s), supplemented by other information (e.g. the results of the analysis shown in Figure 37 and reference sources such as Ollmann, 2001). The range of conversion factors used for each country in the analysis is shown in Table 6, by product and sub-region.
Table 6 Conversion factors used in the wood raw material balance analysis
Product |
Sub-region | ||
Western Europe |
Eastern Europe |
CIS | |
Coniferous sawnwood |
1.42 - 2.10 |
1.50 - 2.00 |
1.60 - 2.00 |
Non-coniferous sawnwood |
1.46 - 3.52 |
1.40 - 2.10 |
1.45 - 2.00 |
Particleboard |
1.20 - 1.80 |
1.40 - 1.80 |
1.40 - 1.60 |
Fibreboard |
1.50 - 1.94 |
1.80 - 3.30 |
2.80 - 3.00 |
Plywood |
1.50 - 3.10 |
1.80 - 2.90 |
2.50 - 2.70 |
Veneer sheets |
1.20 - 3.10 |
1.70 - 2.90 |
2.00 - 2.90 |
Mechanical pulp |
2.16 - 2.60 |
1.20 - 2.90 |
1.20 - 2.50 |
Chemical pulp |
4.48 - 4.70 |
4.50 - 6.40 |
4.48 - 5.21 |
Semi-chemical pulp |
2.20 - 2.90 |
2.30 - 3.20 |
2.86 - 2.90 |
Newsprint |
3.20 |
3.20 |
3.50 |
Printing and writing paper |
4.00 |
4.00 |
4.20 |
Other paper and paperboard |
3.39 - 3.40 |
3.40 - 4.70 |
3.80 |
Recovered paper |
3.80 |
3.80 |
3.80 |
Note: the above conversion factors show the amount of industrial roundwood (cubic metres underbark) required to produce one unit of output (one metric tonne of pulp or paper or one cubic metre of sawnwood or panels).
The above factors were then applied to the production statistics for every country in Europe from 1961 to 2000. It should be noted that this does not take into account the possibility of changes in the conversion factors over the period. If product recovery has increased over the last 40 years (due to improvements in technology), this would suggest that any increases in wood raw material requirements shown in these trends are over-stated. It should also be noted that these figures present a very “gross” figure for wood raw material demand, because they do not take into account the fact that wood may be re-used several times.
The trends produced in this analysis are shown in Figure 39. This shows how much wood and fibre would have been required over the last four decades to supply the European forest processing sector. It also shows how this has varied across the different components of the forest processing sector.6
Figure 39 Trends in wood raw material demand in Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 39 shows that total wood and fibre consumption in Europe has increased from 534 million m3 WRME in 1961 to 771 million m3 WRME in 2000, giving a total increase in consumption of around 45 percent (or 0.9 percent per year).
It also shows that the structure of wood and fibre demand has changed. In 1961, the production of other industrial roundwood, sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets accounted for 77 percent of total wood and fibre demand. By the year 2000, these same products accounted for only 37 percent of total demand. For the other forest products, demand for wood from the reconstituted panels sector has increased almost ten times over the period (or 6.2 percent per year), while demand for net pulp exports and paper and paperboard production has increased by 67 percent and 282 percent (equal to 1.3 percent per year and 3.5 percent per year) respectively.
As before, the trends for the three sub-regions of Europe are quite different compared to the trends for Europe as a whole, so the trends for Western Europe, the CIS sub-region and Eastern Europe are shown in Figure 40 to Figure 42.
Figure 40 Trends in wood raw material demand in Western Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org).
In Western Europe, wood and fibre demand has increased almost three-fold over the last four decades, from 220 million m3 WRME in 1961 to 575 million m3 WRME in 2000. As Figure 40 clearly shows, most of this increase has occurred in the reconstituted panels and paper and paperboard sectors. Consumption of wood by the reconstituted panels sector has increased from 6 million m3 WRME to 76 million m3 WRME (equal to average annual growth of 6.0 percent). Similarly, consumption of wood and fibre for paper and paperboard production has increased from 60 million m3 WRME to 320 million m3 WRME over the same period (or 3.8 percent per year). In contrast, the demand for sawlogs and other industrial roundwood has only increased by about 0.9 percent per year, from 119 million m3 WRME in 1961 to 170 million m3 WRME in 2000.
Figure 41 Trends in wood raw material demand in the CIS sub-region from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the CIS sub-region before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 42 Trends in wood raw material demand in Eastern Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for Eastern Europe before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
In the CIS sub-region, the total demand for wood and fibre remained relatively static over the period 1965 to 1990 at around 300 million m3 WRME and then fell by about two-thirds in the early-1990s to under 100 million m3 WRME. Since then, there has been no increase in total wood and fibre demand.
The demand for wood and fibre in this sub-region has always been heavily concentrated on the production of other industrial roundwood, sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets. However, the dominance of these sectors has fallen, as they now account for only 58 percent of total wood raw material demand compared with 95 percent in 1961. Since the economic disruptions of the early-1990s, only the pulp and paper sectors have shown some recovery in production. They now account for around 30 million m3 WRME or one-third of the total wood and fibre demand of 91 million m3 WRME in 2000.
In Eastern Europe, the trend in wood raw material demand follows the pattern of growth, collapse and recovery demonstrated in the trends in processed product markets. Staring from total wood and fibre demand of 65 million m3 WRME in 1961, demand increased to 110 million m3 WRME in 1986, fell by about one-third in the early-1990s and has since recovered to about 105 million m3 WRME in 2000. Almost all of this variation can be attributed to changes in demand for the production of sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets. The demand for wood and fibre for reconstituted panel, pulp and paper production has generally shown strong and consistent growth over the period, although it did also fall slightly in the early-1990s. Again, the latter have also increased in relative importance over the period, accounting for 43 percent of total wood raw material demand in 2000, compared with a figure of only 14 percent in 1961.
On the other side of the wood raw material balance, there have also been significant changes in the relative importance of different sources of wood and fibre supply. Figure 43 shows the trends in consumption of the three main sources of wood and fibre in Europe over the last 40 years. The solid line represents the total requirement or derived demand in WRME (taken from the previous analysis). The differences between the tops of the bars and the solid line represent the utilisation of other sources of supply that are not recorded in FAO-UNECE statistics. Most of this is probably wood residues, but it also possibly includes the utilisation of recovered wood products (other than wastepaper) and unrecorded production and trade flows (i.e. inaccuracies in the FAO-UNECE statistics).
Figure 43 Trends in wood raw material consumption in Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 43 shows that the composition of wood raw materials consumed in Europe has changed over the last 40 years, with a decline in the relative importance of industrial roundwood compared with other types of wood and fibre. In 1961, industrial roundwood accounted for 90 percent of all wood and fibre consumed in Europe, with the remaining ten percent divided equally between the other types of wood and fibre. By the year 2000, the importance of industrial roundwood had fallen to only 63 percent of total consumption. Consumption of all of the other types of wood and fibre have increased over the period, but the most significant increase by far has been in the use of recovered paper, which accounted for 21 percent of wood and fibre consumption in 2000.
Again, the relative importance of these different wood and fibre supply sources varies between the three sub-regions, so the trends in each of the sub-regions are shown in Figure 44 to Figure 46.
Figure 44 Trends in wood raw material consumption in Western Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org).
As noted above, in Western Europe the total consumption of wood and fibre has increased almost three-fold over the last 40 years. However, consumption of industrial roundwood has increased by only 70 percent over the same period (from 180 million m3 in 1961 to 307 million m3 in 2000). Thus, the relative importance of industrial roundwood as a source of wood and fibre supply has fallen dramatically and now accounts for only 54 percent of total wood and fibre consumption compared with a figure of 82 percent in 1961.
The greatest increase in importance has occurred in the use of recovered paper, which accounted for 20 million m3 WRME (or nine percent of the total) in 1961, rising to 145 million m3 WRME (or 25 percent of the total) in 2000. In addition, the use of net pulp imports has more than doubled to 53 million m3 WRME, although the relative importance of this source of supply has declined slightly to nine percent of total wood and fibre consumption in the year 2000.
The other noticeable feature of these trends is the increase in the gap between raw material requirement (or derived demand) and the known consumption of wood and fibre sources that has taken place over the last four decades. In 1961, this gap was negligible, but by the year 2000 it had increased to 12 percent, making this the third most important supply source. The use of residues from the sawmilling and plywood sectors probably fills most of this gap, although the recycling and re-use of wood products (other than paper) has probably increased in recent years. Currently, very little information is available about the latter (see Box 8 on page 148), but there is strong evidence for some countries, including Germany, that environmental measures (such as landfill taxes) are increasing the supply of wood and fibre from the recycling of other (i.e. non-paper) wood products, notably used pallets and crates, and demolition waste.
Figure 45 Trends in wood raw material consumption in the CIS sub-region from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the CIS sub-region before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 46 Trends in wood raw material consumption in Eastern Europe from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for Eastern Europe before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
In Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-regions, the first noticeable feature is the almost complete reliance on industrial roundwood as a source of wood and fibre supply. In both sub-regions, industrial roundwood has accounted for between 80 percent to 90 percent of total wood and fibre consumption in nearly every year over the last four decades. This contrasts strongly with the trend in Western Europe, where the importance of industrial roundwood has declined dramatically (see Figure 47).
Figure 47 Trends in the importance of industrial roundwood as a source of wood raw material supply from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The only other source of raw materials that is significant in these sub-regions is the use of recovered paper. In the CIS sub-region, recovered paper accounts for about eight percent of total wood and fibre consumption (or 7 million m3 WRME in 2000), while in Eastern Europe it accounts for about 12 percent of total consumption (12 million m3 WRME in 2000).
The gap between total wood and fibre requirements and total consumption from known supply sources has shrunk to almost zero during the 1990s. In fact, in Eastern Europe, the most recent statistics show greater consumption of raw materials than requirement (i.e. the bars are higher than the line in Figure 46). Apart from the fact that the conversion factors used in this analysis could be incorrect, this implies that the use of wood residues has fallen in recent years. However, it also suggests that there may be some problems in the forest product statistics (see below).
The dominance of industrial roundwood in these sub-regions can be partly explained by the structure of the forest processing sectors in most of these countries, which are strongly focused on sawnwood and panel production. It does also suggest though, that there may scope for substitution of recycled materials and wood residues for industrial roundwood or increased exports of such materials in the future.
Trends in the importance of recovered paper as a source of raw material supply to the European pulp and paper industry are shown in Figure 48. These have been calculated by dividing recovered paper consumption by the production of paper and paperboard (plus net pulp exports), with all figures converted to WRME.
Figure 48 Trends in the importance of recovered paper as a source of raw material supply for the pulp and paper industry from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The trends in this figure show that the consumption of recovered paper has increased in importance in Europe (as an input to pulp and paper making), although less so in the CIS sub-region. In Western Europe, the utilisation of recovered paper now accounts for around 40 percent of the wood and fibre used to produce pulp and paper, compared with a figure of only 20 percent in 1961. In Eastern Europe, the trend in utilisation has been similar to this, although it started from a slightly higher level. In the CIS sub-region, the importance of recovered paper increased significantly in the 1970s, to account for 25 percent of the total wood and fibre requirements in the pulp and paper industry in 1982. However, it has not increased in importance since then.
As with the rate of wastepaper recovery, there are some technical limits to how much recovered paper can be used in the pulp and paper making process. For example, certain types of paper require fibre properties that are extremely difficult to find in recovered paper. Similarly, the quality of recovered paper declines as paper is recycled again and again. For example, it is currently estimated that paper can only be recycled a maximum of six times on average (CPI, 2004). However, it is unlikely that these limits will be reached in most countries in the foreseeable future.
Figure 49 shows the trends in the importance of net pulp imports as a source of fibre for the European paper making industry. Pulp imports remain an important source of fibre in Western and Eastern Europe, accounting for about 15 percent of the fibre used for this purpose. In Western Europe, the importance of net pulp imports has declined slightly over the last 40 years, but their importance in Eastern Europe has not changed very much over the period. The CIS sub-region was not a net pulp importer until very recently, when one of the countries there started to import a very small amount of wood pulp.
Combining the information in Figure 48 and Figure 49, it can be seen that industrial roundwood and wood residues account for about 45 percent of the wood and fibre used in pulp and paper production in Western and Eastern Europe and 75 percent of the wood and fibre used for this purpose in the CIS sub-region. Again, this highlights the radically different structure of wood raw material inputs used in the different sub-regions of Europe.
Figure 49 Trends in the importance of net pulp imports as a source of raw material supply for the pulp and paper industry from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Up until now, the analysis has focused on the trends in the known wood raw material supply sources. The major unknown factor in the European wood raw material balance is the availability and utilisation7 of wood residues. However, from the statistics presented earlier, it is possible to estimate what these figures might look like.
Figure 50 shows the estimated potential availability of wood residues in Europe from 1961 to 2000. This has been calculated by subtracting the total volume of sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets produced from the derived demand (in WRME) of the wood raw materials required to support that level of production (shown in Figure 39). This calculation gives only an approximate estimate, as it assumes that all residues could be used by the forest processing sector. Furthermore, a problem with the interpretation of these figures is that some of this wood is probably used as wood fuel. In some cases, this could be significant. However, these figures do present some information about the last major component of the wood raw material supply
Figure 50 Estimated potential availability of wood residues from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 51 Estimated utilisation of wood residues from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
For Europe as a whole, Figure 50 shows that just over 110 million m3 WRME of residues were potentially available in 2000, which is slightly less than at the start of the period. The trends in these estimates match the trends in sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheet production presented earlier, so they show a gradual increase in Western Europe throughout the period, a fluctuation in production in Eastern Europe and a decline in production in the CIS sub-region in the early 1990s. In general, the availability of wood residues has not increased very rapidly over the period, because growth in production in these product sectors has also been relatively low.
A potentially more interesting piece of information is the proportion of these residues that are actually used by the forest products sector and some estimates of this are shown in Figure 51. (Because these results are extremely erratic, 5-year averages are shown in the figure for the period 1961 to 2000).
These figures were calculated by first estimating the domestic consumption of residues in each country. This was done by taking the gaps between WRME demand and consumption of known supply sources (i.e. the gaps shown in Figure 43 to Figure 46). These figures were then adjusted for net trade in chips, particles and wood residues (i.e. exports were added and imports were subtracted from the figures). This gave estimates of the total utilisation of residues, which were then divided by the estimated residue availability (Figure 50). This calculation assumes that wood residues are the only other (unknown) source of wood raw material supply.
For Europe as a whole, the figure shows that the utilisation of wood residues has increased significantly over the last four decades from around 20 percent to around 80 percent of potentially available residue supply. At the sub-regional level, there was not much difference in residue utilisation until the 1990s, as all of the sub-regions showed some growth in residue utilisation from 1961 to 1990. However, since 1990, the figures have changed dramatically, casting doubt on the reliability of these estimates (and, implicitly, the reliability of the forest product statistics more generally).
The problem highlighted by this figure is one of the consistency of the European forest product statistics. Problems of consistency arise when a country appears to be consuming far too many wood raw materials compared to its level of product production or, more often, when a country produces far more forest products than the consumption of raw materials would suggest. There has always been a slight problem of inconsistency in European forest products statistics, but this appears to have worsened in the 1990s. Furthermore, at the individual country level, the problems of inconsistency are even greater than those shown here.
There are a number of possible explanations for these results. First, if the conversion factors that have been used in this analysis are incorrect, this could account for the problem. However, this would not explain why consistency suddenly becomes a problem in the 1990s. A second explanation would be the development of another new (and unrecorded) source of wood raw material supply. Recycling of other (i.e. non-wood) forest products has already been noted as a possibility, but it is unlikely that this could account for all of the changes.
The weight of the evidence suggests that the European production and trade statistics may have declined in quality in the 1990s. This could be due to factors such as the relaxation of customs controls in the European Union and the transition from public to private control of many parts of the forest sector in the East. For Europe as a whole, the trend in residue utilisation looks quite plausible, but it is conspicuous that estimated residue utilisation in Western Europe increases dramatically (to over 100 percent) in the last decade, while the opposite occurs in the other two sub-regions. Not only does this suggest that the quality of statistics has declined, but it also implies that unrecorded or mis-classified wood raw material trade flows may have started to appear in the last decade.
Of course, by including the possible inaccuracies in statistics in the residue sector (which is a relatively small component of total wood and fibre supply) this magnifies the appearance of the problem. However, the preceding analysis does suggest that there are some statistical issues that should be examined in the future.
Table 7 The European wood raw material balance (average of the years 1996 to 2000)
Component |
Europe |
Sub-regions | ||
Western Europe |
Eastern Europe |
CIS | ||
Derived demand for wood raw materials |
||||
Other industrial roundwood |
34.3 |
6.3 |
11.1 |
16.9 |
Sawnwood, plywood and veneer sheets |
234.2 |
150.5 |
41.5 |
42.2 |
Reconstituted panels |
71.7 |
50.8 |
14.5 |
6.4 |
Net pulp exports |
31.7 |
24.5 |
1.1 |
6.0 |
Paper and paperboard |
335.2 |
293.3 |
25.0 |
16.9 |
Total derived demand |
707.1 |
525.4 |
93.3 |
88.4 |
Consumption of wood raw materials |
||||
Industrial roundwood |
431.4 |
270.8 |
81.0 |
79.7 |
Recovered paper |
139.6 |
123.7 |
10.4 |
5.5 |
Net pulp imports |
55.6 |
51.9 |
3.3 |
0.3 |
Other |
80.6 |
79.1 |
-1.4 |
2.9 |
- net imports of chips, particles and residues |
0.1 |
2.6 |
-1.8 |
-0.6 |
- utilisation of wood residues |
80.4 |
76.5 |
0.4 |
3.5 |
Total consumption |
707.1 |
525.4 |
93.3 |
88.4 |
Note: the above figures are expressed in million m3 WRME and show average annual demand and consumption. For trade in chips, particles and residues, imports are shown as a positive number and exports are shown as negative numbers.
Drawing together all of the previous analysis, Table 7 shows the current European wood raw material balance in terms of the average annual demand for and consumption of wood raw materials over the years 1996 to 2000. This clearly shows the structural differences between Western Europe and the other two sub-regions, in particular the greater demand for wood and fibre from the pulp and paper industry in Western Europe and the lower dependence on industrial roundwood and a fibre supply source. As the other two sub-regions in Europe continue their transition to developed market economies, it can be expected that the structure of their forest sectors will also start to alter to look more similar to the Western European forest sector.
Based on the trends in production and consumption, previous sections have already described some of the changes in net trade that have taken place in Europe over the last four decades. This section expands upon the analysis, by showing how international trade has become relatively more important in much of Europe (especially in the last decade) and by describing the structure of trade across the region. It also briefly discusses the competitiveness of European wood products in global markets.
International trade in wood products has increased in importance across most regions of the World over the last four decades. International trade within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the World has followed this pattern, as is demonstrated by the rates of growth in imports and exports in Europe over the last four decades (shown in Figure 52 and Figure 53).
Since 1961, imports and exports of sawnwood have increased by 1.7 percent 2.3 percent per year respectively, while imports and exports of wood pulp have increased at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent and 1.8 percent respectively. International trade in wood based panels and paper and paperboard has increased even more rapidly than this. Average annual growth in imports and exports of wood based panels has amounted to 6.6 percent and 6.7 percent respectively, while the corresponding figures for paper and paperboard are 6.1 percent and 6.2 percent.
Behind these broad trends there have been some interesting developments for different products in different sub-regions and during different time periods in the recent past. In the sawnwood sector, growth in international trade was relatively modest up until the 1990s and, in the case of Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region, actually declined for parts of the period 1961 to 1990. In the 1990s, European trade in sawnwood increased dramatically at both the European and sub-regional level, with a particularly high rate of growth in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region. A similar pattern in the growth of European trade in wood based panels also occurred over the last four decades, with relatively slow growth during the 1970s and 1980s and a remarkable increase in international trade in the 1990s.
European trade in wood pulp has increased only modestly over the last 40 years and has, in general, grown more slowly than production and consumption. However, as in the solid wood products sector, trade with Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region has increased more rapidly during the 1990s.
The paper and paperboard sector is the one major component of the forest products sector where there has been strong and sustained growth in European trade throughout most of the region over the last four decades. However, again, very little growth in trade occurred in some parts of Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region until the 1990s, when both imports and exports increased significantly.
The importance of international trade to the forest sector can be shown by the proportion of production (or consumption) that is exported (or imported). For each of the four main forest products categories, the trends in the ratio of exports to production since 1961 are shown in Figure 54 and Figure 55. With the exception of wood pulp, these figures show how the importance of exports has gradually and consistently increased in Western Europe with, for example, exports accounting for almost 60 percent of paper and paperboard production in the late 1990s. In the case of wood pulp, the importance of exports in Western Europe has declined over the last 40 years, although this decline levelled-out over the latter half of the period.
For the other two sub-regions, the figures present an even more dramatic picture of the changes in international trade that have taken place in the last decade. As the domestic economies in these sub-regions have shrunk over the last decade, production has become more export-oriented and the importance of exports to the forest processing industry has increased several-fold. For example, exports of sawnwood accounted for only around 10 percent of production in Eastern Europe in 1990, but accounted for over 45 percent of production in 2000.
Figure 52 Growth in European trade in solid wood products from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 53 Growth in European trade in pulp and paper products from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 54 Exports as a share of solid wood product production from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 55 Exports as a share of pulp and paper product production from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
As noted in earlier sections, the fluctuations in trade with Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region can be explained by the replacement of the trading systems of the formerly planned economies by free-market trade. These changes have occurred as part of the transition towards market-based economies in these countries. However, a more interesting observation from these trends is that the importance of international trade has increased more generally across all parts of the region during the 1990s. This has occurred partly due to the changes in transition countries, but it also reflects a more general trend towards the globalisation of forest products markets. For example, at the global level, the importance of forest products exports (measured as a proportion of production) increased during the 1990s by as much as in the previous three decades. Furthermore, this increase in international trade occurred across all major categories of forest products. This trend towards globalisation is one of the major driving forces that has affected forest products markets in recent years and will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.6 of this report.
As in most other sectors, Europe’s position in the global markets for wood products is largely determined by the relative size of the European economy. Figure 56 shows the trends in Europe’s share of total global wood products imports and exports (by value) since 1961.
Figure 56 The European share of global trade in wood products from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Europe’s relative importance as an importer of wood products has declined gradually over the last 40 years. Western Europe has always accounted for the majority of imports into Europe, so this trend has occurred largely because imports into other regions, most notably East Asia (e.g. Japan, Korea and China), have grown much more rapidly than in Western Europe. Another minor feature of this figure is the increase in the importance of imports into Eastern Europe that has occurred in the last decade. This is due to the rapid economic growth in this region, which has stimulated the demand for all types of wood products in this sub-region from both domestic and foreign sources.
The importance of Europe as an exporter of wood products has also declined over the last four decades, although by less than in the case of imports. The decline in the importance of European exports is mostly attributable to the low growth and decline (in some periods) of exports from Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region. As noted above, these trends have started to reverse, but the longer-term effect of this has been to reduce the contribution of these two sub-regions to global wood products exports. In contrast, the value of wood products exports from Western Europe has increased at about the same rate as in the rest of the World. Thus, Western Europe has consistently accounted for about 40 percent to 45 percent of global wood products exports over the last four decades.
Another interesting feature of Figure 56 is that it shows that Europe is now a small net exporter of wood products (by value) at the regional and sub-regional level.8 A more detailed picture of the trends in net trade is given by the trends in the Normalised Trade Balances for the main product categories and these are shown in Figure 57 and Figure 58.
The Normalised Trade Balance is a measure of net trade, which is calculated by dividing the total value of net trade in each sub-region (i.e. total value of exports minus total value of imports) by the total value of trade (i.e. total value of exports plus total value of imports). The figure varies from +100 percent (in locations with exports only) to -100 percent (in locations with imports only), with a figure of zero indicating that the value of imports and exports are equal.
Figure 57 shows that European net trade in sawnwood and wood based panels has shifted over the period to a position where the value of imports and exports are approximately equal. In sawnwood markets, Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region have always been significant net exporters, with almost no imports of sawnwood into the CIS sub-region and exports roughly four times higher than imports into Eastern Europe. The main shift in the net trade position at the European level has occurred due to changes in Western Europe, particularly in the last decade. The value of sawnwood imports into Western Europe is currently less than one-and-a-half times the value of exports, leading to a normalised trade deficit of less than 20 percent. This compares with a normalised trade deficit of 30 percent to 40 percent in the 1960s, when the value of imports was more than twice the value of exports in Western Europe.
Trends in the net trade balance for wood based panels show similar features to the trends for sawnwood, although the surplus of exports over imports in the CIS sub-region is relatively smaller and net trade in Eastern Europe has changed from a position of significant net exports to one of a small amount of net imports. Again, a significant change has occurred in Western Europe in the last decade, with a shift towards equality in the value of imports and exports.
The Normalised Trade Balance for wood pulp shows how Western and Eastern Europe remain significant net importers of this product, while the CIS sub-region is a significant net exporter (see Figure 58). The deficit in European wood pulp trade has increased over the last four decades due to an increase in the deficit in Western Europe. This can be attributed to strong growth in paper and paperboard production in Western Europe, combined with a redirection of pulp production away from export markets towards domestic processing into paper.
Figure 57 Historical trends in the Normalised Trade Balance for solid wood products
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 58 Historical trends in the Normalised Trade Balance for pulp and paper products
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 58 also shows how the balance of trade in paper and paperboard has shifted over the last 40 years, with a consistent and gradual strengthening of net exports (largely from Western Europe). Although the Normalised Trade Balance appears quite small (+10 percent) the value of this trade is huge, amounting to more than the value of trade in the other three major product categories combined.
In addition to the growth in Western Europe, the CIS sub-region has become a modest net exporter of paper and paperboard in the last decade. Eastern Europe remains in a position where the value of paper and paperboard imports are about two-and-a-half times higher than the value of exports, leading to a Normalised Trade Balance of around -40 percent. However, this does little to affect the position of Europe as a whole, as the contribution of both of these sub-regions to European trade is quite small.
Another interesting feature of European trade in forest products is that a high proportion of the international trade in Europe takes place within the continent itself. In part, this is because Europe contains countries with significant forest resources and relatively small markets as well as countries with large markets and few forest resources.
Thus, for example, 80 percent of European forest products exports (by value) were exported to other European countries in 2000 (EUR 60 billion out of EUR 75 billion - see Table 8). Furthermore, 80 percent of the trade within Europe was between the countries of Western Europe. Western Europe is the largest European exporter of forest products to the rest of the World (EUR 12.4 billion of exports in 2000), but the CIS sub-region is the most exposed to external forest products markets, with exports to non-European countries accounting for almost 45 percent of exports in 2000.
Table 8 Value of exports of wood products to and from Europe in 2000 (in billion Euros)
Exporting region |
Importing region | |||||
Western Europe |
Eastern Europe |
CIS |
Europe |
Rest of World |
World total | |
Western Europe |
48.4 |
3.5 |
0.5 |
52.3 |
12.4 |
64.7 |
Eastern Europe |
3.9 |
1.1 |
0.2 |
5.2 |
0.7 |
5.9 |
CIS |
1.5 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
2.5 |
1.9 |
4.4 |
Europe |
53.8 |
5.3 |
0.9 |
60.0 |
15.0 |
75.0 |
Rest of World |
11.8 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
12.2 |
69.9 |
82.1 |
World total |
65.6 |
5.7 |
0.9 |
72.2 |
84.9 |
157.0 |
Note: the above figures are all export values (i.e. FOB) converted from USD to EUR at the exchange rate in 2000 of EUR 1.09 per USD 1.00.
An indicator of the strength of the trading relationships between countries, regions and sub-regions is the Trade Intensity Index. This is used to determine whether the value of trade between two locations in a particular good is greater or smaller than would be expected on the basis of their importance in world trade of that good. It is defined as the share of one location's exports going to a partner location divided by the share of world exports going to the partner location.9 An index of more (or less) than one indicates a bilateral trade flow that is larger (or smaller) than expected, given the partner location's importance in world trade (Hoekman et al, 2003).
The Trade Intensity Index was calculated for wood products exports for every country in Europe and the results at the regional and sub-regional levels are shown in Table 9. As would be expected, due to the costs of transport and other socio-economic factors, the Trade Intensity Index is higher for trade flows within each European sub-region than for trade between each sub-region and the other two European sub-regions. However, the table does provide some insights into the integration in European wood products markets that has already taken place. For example, there are very strong linkages in trade between Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region, showing that each of these sub-regions is important as a source of exports to the other. The linkages between the CIS sub-region and Western Europe are currently not as strong.
Trade within Eastern Europe is stronger than trade with the other two sub-regions, but the CIS sub-region is almost as important as a source of imports into Eastern Europe as countries from within the sub-region, Furthermore, the intensity of trade from Eastern Europe to Western Europe is almost as strong as the intensity of trade within Western Europe.
Table 9 Intensity of European trade in wood products in 2000 (Trade Intensity Index)
Exporting region |
Importing region | ||||
Western Europe |
Eastern Europe |
CIS |
Europe |
Rest of World | |
Western Europe |
1.79 |
1.48 |
1.25 |
1.76 |
0.35 |
Eastern Europe |
1.59 |
5.28 |
4.51 |
1.92 |
0.22 |
CIS |
0.82 |
4.53 |
10.34 |
1.23 |
0.80 |
Europe |
1.72 |
1.95 |
2.04 |
1.74 |
0.37 |
Rest of World |
0.34 |
0.13 |
0.05 |
0.32 |
1.58 |
Note: a Trade Intensity Index value of one indicates a trade flow of “average” importance given the total level of exports from a region and imports into an importing region. A value of less than one indicates a weaker trading relationship (minimum bound is zero), while a value greater than one indicates a stronger relationship.
The Trade Intensity Index shows that considerable progress has already been made towards integrating the forest products sectors in the different European sub-regions, particularly in terms of the integration of Western and Eastern Europe. Another important highlight of this table is the weakness of trading links between the rest of the World and Europe, particularly in terms of exports to Europe. The only notable trading relationship is between the CIS sub-region and the rest of the World, although this is still less than would be expected given the magnitude of exports from the CIS sub-region and imports into the rest of the World.
International trade statistics can also be used to indicate the potential for growth in exports, by comparing trends in exports of wood products with trends in the exports of all goods from a country or region. The index of Revealed Comparative Advantage10 measures the potential for export growth in different product sectors, by assuming that a country or region will increase exports of products in which it has a comparative advantage.
It can also provide useful information about potential trade prospects with other partners. Countries or regions with similar indices are unlikely to have high bilateral trade intensities (unless intra-industry trade is involved, which is frequently the case), but trade may be expected to increase between countries or regions with very different indices.
Indices of Revealed Comparative Advantage have been used to help assess the export potential of different types of products from a country or region. Trends in the Revealed Comparative Advantage in forest products in Europe are given in Figure 59 and Figure 60 for the period 1980 to 2000. A value of less than one implies that a sub-region has a revealed comparative disadvantage in the product, whereas a value of greater than one suggests that the sub-region has a revealed comparative advantage in the product.
The Revealed Comparative Advantage in sawnwood production in Europe lies largely in the east (see Figure 59). In Western Europe, the index has always been less than one and has not increased over the last two decades. Of course, there are some countries in Western Europe (e.g. Sweden and Finland) where the sawmilling sector is an export-oriented sector, but the majority of countries in Western Europe do not currently have a comparative advantage in sawmilling.
The most notable feature of Figure 59 is the dramatic increase that has occurred in the index of Revealed Comparative Advantage in Eastern Europe over the last decade. This sub-region clearly has a comparative advantage in the production and export of sawnwood (although, again, this may be due to the dominance of a few countries in the sub-region). The index for the CIS sub-region has declined in recent years (presumably due to the relative increase in the importance of oil and gas exports), but remains well above one.
The Revealed Comparative Advantage in wood based panel production in Europe has increased across the region over most of the last decade. If this trend continues, all three sub-regions will soon have a comparative advantage in the production of wood based panels. Currently, Eastern Europe has the greatest potential, showing a trend similar to that for sawnwood. However, it seems likely that the other two regions will also develop significant export potential in this sector in the near future.
Figure 60 shows the trends in Revealed Comparative Advantage in the pulp and paper sectors in Europe. As the earlier text has already suggested, Europe is not a significant exporter of wood pulp and does not have a comparative advantage in this product, except in the CIS sub-region. A few countries in Western Europe are able to compete successfully in global wood pulp markets, but this is not an export-oriented sector in the majority of countries.
Another point worth noting is the divergence in the Revealed Comparative Advantage indices for wood pulp between the CIS sub-region and the other two European sub-regions. This suggests that there is huge potential for exports of wood pulp from the CIS sub-region to the rest of Europe. Given the trends for paper and paperboard production (see below), it seems likely that such trade will increase in the future.
The pattern of competitiveness in the paper and paperboard sector in Europe is almost the opposite of what has been described above. In this sector, Western Europe clearly has a comparative advantage in production, suggesting that there is a very high potential for future export growth. Furthermore, the index of Revealed Comparative Advantage in Western Europe has increased over the last two decades (although only slowly). Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region do not currently enjoy a comparative advantage in paper and paperboard production, although the increasing trends suggest that they may do so in the future. In the near-term, it seems likely that the flow of paper and paperboard exports from west to east in Europe will increase and will also increase from Western Europe to the rest of the World.
Figure 59 Revealed Comparative Advantage for solid wood products since 1980
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 60 Revealed Comparative Advantage for pulp and paper products since 1980
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Globally, historical trends in the prices of wood products have shown a great deal of fluctuation, with periods of price increases, declines and stability. In nominal terms (i.e. unadjusted for inflation), prices increased throughout the 1960s, in many cases faster than the rate of inflation. At the start of the 1970s, prices peaked at the time of the first oil price shock (as did the prices of many other commodities). From this point until the 1990s, trends in prices have varied by product and region. For some products in some regions, prices continued to rise faster than inflation. In other cases, nominal prices rose by less, leading to constant or falling real prices (i.e. prices adjusted for inflation). During the 1990s, prices of wood products have generally remained about the same or fallen in nominal terms at the global level, leading to significant falls in real prices (see Figure 61).
Figure 61 Global trends in export prices for the main wood product categories since 1990
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org).
The following analysis describes the historical trends in real prices for all of the main forest product categories in Europe since 1970. FAOSTAT does not contain information about domestic prices, so trends in trade prices are used here. These were calculated (for every year in each country) by adding together total import and export values, then dividing this by total import and export volumes. Western Europe has a high volume of imports and exports of wood products, so the averages of import and export prices can be considered as broadly indicative of the prevailing prices in this sub-region. For the other two sub-regions, the amounts of trade are generally much smaller (and may be flowing predominantly in one direction), so these figures should be treated with more caution.
FAOSTAT records the value of trade in current US Dollars, so these figures were converted to real prices (in Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates). This was done by converting all of the figures to national currencies (using the prevailing exchange rate in each year), deflating them using national GDP deflators11 and then converting them to Euros at the exchange rates of 2000. The price series for each sub-region and Europe as a whole were calculated as the weighted averages of the price series for each country, using traded volumes as the weights.
The analysis only extends back to 1970, because of the lack of information about GDP deflators for all countries in earlier years. Furthermore, because of the price and exchange controls in place in many countries outside Western Europe before 1990, the trends for Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region should be considered as only broadly indicative of the price trends for these two sub-regions in the earlier years.
Figure 62 shows the trends in real prices for sawnwood in Europe over the last three decades. As the figure shows, the real price of sawnwood has tended to fall in recent years, particularly in the case of coniferous sawnwood in Western Europe.
Figure 62 Trends in real sawnwood prices in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
The decline in the real price of coniferous sawnwood has not been as steep as at first appears, because the price in 1974 was unusually high. A more realistic interpretation of these trends is that real prices in Western Europe were around EUR 300 per CUM throughout the late 1970s and fell by one-third to slightly less than EUR 200 per CUM by the year 2000. Real prices in Eastern Europe were between EUR 150 and EUR 200 per CUM for most of the period, but have also fallen in recent years to the lower end of this range. Prices in the CIS sub-region have remained fairly constant, at around EUR 100 per CUM. The prices for the latter two sub-regions are weighted heavily towards sawnwood exports, so domestic prices may be somewhat lower than suggested here.
European non-coniferous sawnwood prices have also generally fallen in real terms since 1970, but not by as much as in the case of coniferous sawnwood. In Western Europe, real prices were mostly in the range of EUR 500 to EUR 550 per CUM until the mid-1980s. Since then, non-coniferous sawnwood has generally traded in the range of EUR 450 to EUR 500 per CUM. Prices in Eastern Europe rose dramatically in the early-1990s, to over EUR 300 per CUM, but have since fallen back to around EUR 200 per CUM. Trade prices with the CIS sub-region show a similar pattern, but have fallen back to a level of only EUR 100 per CUM.
At a broad level, the figure also shows two other interesting features in the real price trends for sawnwood in Europe. The first is that there has been some convergence of prices in the region, particularly in terms of the reduction in the gap between prices in Western and Eastern Europe. Secondly, the immediate increases in prices experienced in most of Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region in the early-1990s have not been sustained, as prices there have generally declined over the last decade. While the expansion of production and exports in the east may have had some short-term impact on prices in Western Europe, it seems likely that this has been only one of many factors contributing to the general decline in prices in the region.
Historical trends in the real price of wood based panels in Europe are given in Figure 63 and Figure 64. In general, these also show declines in real prices in Europe across all product categories. However, most of the trends do not shown the same consistently falling real prices. Furthermore, the situation in Western Europe has been quite different to that of the other two European sub-regions.
The real price of fibreboard traded in Western Europe has fluctuated a lot over the last three decades, but has remained mostly in the range of EUR 350 to EUR 400 per CUM. At the end of the 1990s, the price fell below this level, but this may be only a temporary fall in the price of fibreboard. In both of the other two sub-regions, the real price of fibreboard has shown an upward trend, rising from a real price of around EUR 100 per CUM at the start of the period to EUR 200 per CUM in 2000. The apparent ability of fibreboard prices to avoid the declines in real prices shown in so many other product categories is probably due to the introduction of new products such as MDF.
In contrast, particleboard prices in Western Europe have shown a consistent downward trend in real terms over the period, from over EUR 350 per CUM in 1970 to under EUR 250 per CUM for most of the 1990s. Based on the trend shown in Figure 63, it appears that the price may now have stabilised at this level. Again, the real price of particleboard traded in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region has increased from under EUR 100 per CUM in 1970 to around EUR 200 per CUM in Eastern Europe and EUR 150 per CUM in the CIS sub-region.
The real price trends for plywood and veneer sheets show that prices fell significantly over the period 1970 to 1985, but appear to have stabilised since then. Currently, plywood is traded at a price of around EUR 500 per CUM in Western and Eastern Europe (or about half this amount in the CIS sub-region). Veneer sheet prices have stabilised at a price of around EUR 1,250 per CUM in Western Europe or slightly less than this in Eastern Europe. The trade prices for the CIS sub-region probably do not reflect the price trends for most of the veneer sheets produced and consumed in this sub-region, because the volumes of trade are very small.
Again, these figures show that wood based panels prices have converged between Western and Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, with the CIS sub-region. However, in this case, prices in Western Europe appear to have stabilised in recent years, while prices in the east have risen to meet them.
Figure 63 Trends in real fibreboard and particleboard prices in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 64 Trends in real plywood and veneer sheets prices in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Real price trends for wood pulp traded in Europe are shown in Figure 65 and Figure 66. The first point worth noting is that wood pulp prices fluctuate a lot. This is due to changes in demand (related to the business cycle and strongly dependent on inventory movements) combined with the supply inflexibility due to the large investments required for pulp production, which restrict the ability of producers to alter production significantly from year to year.
Western Europe accounts for the majority of wood pulp traded in Europe and the figures show that semi-chemical and mechanical wood pulp prices have remained roughly the same over the period. The markets for semi-chemical wood pulp are relatively small and the real price of semi-chemical wood pulp has varied from about EUR 400 per MT to EUR 600 per MT over most of the period. Mechanical wood pulp has generally traded in a similar or slightly lower price range over the same period. In the last decade, real prices for both products have been somewhat lower than in the period from 1970 to 1990, but it is difficult to tell whether this represents a permanent shift to a lower price range or a temporary decline in real prices.
In the chemical wood pulp sector, (by far the most important from the trade point of view) there has been a much more pronounced fall in real prices in the last decade. From 1970 to 1990, the real price of chemical wood pulp fluctuated widely, from EUR 600 per MT to EUR 1,000 per MT with an average real price of around EUR 750 per MT. During the last decade, the real price of chemical wood pulp has fluctuated from EUR 400 per MT to EUR 700 per MT, with an average value in the middle of this range.
Chemical wood pulp is by far the most important type of wood pulp traded internationally and this product is produced in a large number of countries around the World. The lower prices in recent years are likely to reflect the entry of new low-cost producers from the Southern Hemisphere into these markets. The continued presence of these producers and the increased globalisation of trade in this product suggest that the lower price range experienced in the last decade may be a permanent feature of this market.
The availability of trade price statistics for wood pulp in the other two sub-regions is very limited, because few countries in these sub-regions have imported or exported wood pulp over the last three decades. What little evidence there is suggests that real wood pulp prices in Eastern Europe have probably remained more or less the same over much of the period, at levels that are close to or slightly below those in Western Europe. The production and trade (export) of chemical wood pulp is quite significant in the CIS sub-region and the figures suggest that real prices may have increased slightly over the period. Over the last decade, the real price of chemical wood pulp traded with the CIS sub-region has fluctuated between EUR 200 per MT and EUR 500 per MT and prices in this sub-region have followed the variation in prices displayed in Western Europe.
Historical trends in the real price of paper and paperboard products traded in Europe are shown in Figure 66 and Figure 67. International trade in paper and paperboard accounts for a relatively high share of production and consumption in all three sub-regions, so these trends are quite likely to reflect the more general trends in real prices experienced in all three sub-regions over the last thirty years.
At a broad level, the real price trends for each of the three main product categories show the same features, with a declining real price trend in Western Europe and rising prices in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region. Average real trade prices in Eastern Europe have converged with those in Western Europe over the last decade, while prices in the CIS sub-region remain somewhat below those in the rest of Europe.
Figure 65 Trends in real semi-chemical and chemical pulp prices in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 66 Trends in real newsprint and mechanical pulp prices in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 67 Trends in the real price of printing and writing paper and other paper and paperboard in Europe since 1970
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
In Western Europe, the real price of newsprint has declined over the last three decades, from a range of EUR 800 per MT to EUR 1,000 per MT in the late-1970s to a range of EUR 500 per MT to EUR 700 per MT in the last decade. Prices in Eastern Europe were around EUR 300 per MT in 1970, but have converged with prices in Western Europe over the last decade. Prices in the CIS sub-region started at a lower level of EUR 200 per MT in 1970 and have also risen over the period. However, newsprint traded with the CIS sub-region (mostly exports from the sub-region) is currently priced about EUR 200 per MT lower than in the rest of the Europe.
The real prices of printing and writing paper and other paper and paperboard in Western Europe have also fallen over the last three decades. Over the period 1970 to 1990, the average real price of other paper and paperboard was around EUR 1,100 per MT, while the real price of printing and writing paper was around EUR 1,300 per MT. Over the last decade, both products have generally traded in the range of EUR 800 per MT to EUR 1,000 per MT. As in the case of newsprint, the prices of both products in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region have risen over the last thirty years. Prices in Eastern Europe have more or less converged with those in Western Europe, while prices in the CIS sub-region seem to have stabilised at a level that is about EUR 200 per MT lower than in the rest of the Europe.
The explanation for the trends in these markets is probably very similar to the explanation given above for chemical wood pulp. Paper and paperboard markets are increasingly globalised and a number of low-cost producers have entered the market in recent years. Thus, it seems likely that an environment of lower prices will persist in the future. The difference between prices in the CIS sub-region compared with the rest of Europe probably reflects the fact that these prices are heavily weighted towards export prices, which are measured as “free on board” (FOB) and will be slightly lower than in the rest of Europe due to transportation costs. Taking this into account, it is probably true to say that prices in the CIS sub-region have also converged with prices in the rest of Europe.
The price of industrial roundwood traded on international markets is not a very good indictor of general roundwood prices, because only a small proportion of industrial roundwood production and consumption is exported or imported. However, the availability of information about domestic roundwood prices is limited and is not generally available for every country in Europe. In addition to this, there is the problem that the data that is available is measured at a number of different points along the roundwood production chain (i.e. standing, at roadside or delivered).
To the forest owner or manager, the most important measure of the value of their roundwood production is the price of standing timber (or “stumpage” price). Information about the trends in stumpage prices in selected European countries were collected and converted to real prices (at 2000 price levels and exchange rates) and are presented here below.
Figure 68 Trends in real stumpage prices in Northern Europe since 1970
Sources: METLA (2003); Skogsstyrelsen (2004); Solberg (in prep); and RMK (2004).
Figure 68 shows the recent trends in real stumpage prices in a number of countries in Northern Europe since 1970. To a large extent, these trends are similar to those presented earlier for processed forest products and wood pulp, showing a peak in real prices in the mid-1970s, followed by a gradual decline in real prices since then.
In general, prices in Finland and Norway have declined by about EUR 10 per CUM across all types of industrial roundwood over the last three decades. Sawlogs sold standing in Finland achieved prices in the range of EUR 50 per CUM to EUR 60 per CUM during the latter half of the 1970s, but currently sell in the range of EUR 40 per CUM to EUR 50 per CUM. The price trend shown for Norway has been derived by subtracting average felling and extraction costs from average roadside sale prices. This shows a decline from around EUR 40 per CUM in the 1970s to an average price of around EUR 30 per CUM during the last decade.
In Sweden, it appears that stumpage prices have remained roughly the same over the period (in real terms) at a level of around EUR 40 per CUM. However, there is some weak evidence that prices may have also fallen slightly there in recent years. The price series for Estonia is too short to make any reliable statements about prices in that country, but it is notable that nominal prices have stayed about the same in the country since 1994, while inflation has reduced the real stumpage price by about half.
Figure 69 Trends in real stumpage prices in Belgium and the United Kingdom since 1970
Sources: Gerkens and Gérard (2004) and FC (2002).
As a contrast to the figures for Northern Europe, Figure 69 presents trends in real stumpage prices for the Wallonne Region of Belgium and the United Kingdom. Although these figures also show a general decline in real prices, they also show that trends in real stumpage prices can be affected by a number of local variables.
For example, in the case of very large sized non-coniferous industrial roundwood in Belgium (roundwood with a circumference of 200 cm to 250 cm at breast height), the real price of oak has fallen by about half since the 1970s. In contrast, the real price of beech has risen by about 40 percent, from an average of around EUR 100 per CUM over the period 1970 to 1985, to an average price of around EUR 140 per CUM over the last five years. To some extent, this difference in price trends is due to greater interest shown in recent years in the use of beech for higher value products.
The real price trend for spruce in Belgium is very similar to the trend for Finland shown in the previous figure. However, in the United Kingdom, the trend for standing sales of all coniferous industrial roundwood shows a much more severe decline in real prices, with prices falling by almost two-thirds in the last decade. This could be due to the rapid expansion of production from maturing forest plantations there in recent years, leading to a situation where supply has been increasing more rapidly than demand.
As these figures have shown, the main factor that determines stumpage prices is the prices paid for processed forest products. Thus, in view of the trends presented in earlier sections, it follows that the trends in real stumpage prices have also generally declined in recent years. However, the trends from Belgium and the United Kingdom also show that local market conditions can affect stumpage prices. Currently, the challenge for most forest owners is to maintain the economic viability of forest management in an environment of low wood prices.
Unfortunately, the quality of statistics about woodfuel production and consumption in Europe is generally quite poor. For example, of the 38 countries included in the EFSOS, only 27 countries provided information about woodfuel production in 2000 and FAO estimated woodfuel production for the remaining 11 countries.
Until recently, the process used by FAO to estimate missing woodfuel statistics was very simplistic. Estimates of per capita woodfuel consumption were produced in the late-1980s and these were used (along with population statistics) to produce estimates of total woodfuel production for countries where no data is available. More recently, an improved methodology was developed to estimate missing data (see Whiteman et al, 2002) and this has been used to revise all historical estimates of woodfuel production in Europe. Although this methodology is believed to produce better estimates than before, it should be noted that the trends presented here are based on a mixture of statistics reported by countries and FAO estimates. Furthermore there are many ambiguities concerning the reported figures: do they cover all production or only that entering commercial channels? Are branches etc. covered (they are not generally included in forest inventories of standing volume) ? what about trees outside the forest or other woody vegetation, which accounts for millions of m3 of wood fuel in some cases? What about bark, wood residues and recovered wood used for energy? Are the data collected from surveys of suppliers, or by user surveys?
Figure 70 Trends in production and consumption of woodfuel from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: figures for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 70 shows the trends in woodfuel production and consumption in Europe over the last four decades, as contained in the international data bases. The first point to note is that production and consumption are more or less the same, because international trade in woodfuel is insignificant. Broadly speaking, the annual production and consumption of woodfuel reported in Europe has fallen by almost half over the last four decades, from 189 million m3 in 1961 to 113 million m3 in 2000.
At the sub-regional level, production and consumption of woodfuel also is reported to have fallen in all three EFSOS sub-regions. In Western Europe, consumption declined from around 60 million m3 in 1961 to 33 million m3 in 1975. Since 1975, annual consumption has fluctuated between 30 million m3 and 35 million m3, with no strong visible trend upwards or downwards.
In Eastern Europe, woodfuel consumption appears to have declined from around 35 million m3 in 1961 to 25 million m3 in 2000. The increase shown for the period from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s is due to Turkey, where increased production was reported for a number of years. It is not known whether this represents a true change in production over these years or is a statistical anomaly. Apart from this period, the statistics show a slight but strong downward trend until the mid-1990s, after which it appears that woodfuel production may be increasing slightly.
In the CIS sub-region, production and consumption declined gradually until the early-1990s, when both variables fell by about 50 percent. Since then, production and consumption have fluctuated a lot, but the statistics suggest that the use of woodfuel may be increasing slightly.
Traditionally, woodfuel has been mostly used in one of two forms, either directly as fuelwood or as charcoal. The definition of “woodfuel” used to compile these statistics only includes these two types of woodfuel (i.e. wood burned directly as fuelwood plus the wood used to make charcoal). More recently, there has been growth in the use of wood for a variety of different energy uses such as electricity generation, and in larger heating units, for district heating, co-generation or the energy needs of larger buildings such as schools and barracks, increasingly with modern systems for clean combustion and automatic boiler feeding. Furthermore, the use of wood chips and wood residues for energy production is quite common in the forest processing industry and has probably increased in the forest processing industry and elsewhere. It is not known whether these statistics capture some of these uses of wood for energy, so this is another reason why these trends must be treated with some caution. There may be a recovery in the use of wood energy under way at present, but the statistical data are not yet able to monitor or analyse this trend
It is frequently stated that the production of NWFPs and forest services is just as important as wood production in Europe and that this importance is increasing. Indeed, some of the most sensitive and complex policy questions over the last decade in Europe have concerned NWFPs and forest services. In order to assess how true this might be, this section and the following section briefly summarise the trends and current status of the supply and demand for NWFPs and forest services from European forests.
There is no recognised standard classification of NWFPs and forest services although, in consultation with countries, FAO is working towards an internationally agreed classification and set of definitions (FAO, 1999). For the purpose of this study, NWFPs and forest services have been divided into the following broad groups:
Non-wood forest products (NWFPs):
• edible plant products (e.g. fruits, nuts, mushrooms, herbs and saps);
• animal products (e.g. honey, game meat and pelts);
• medicinal plants;
• bark, foliage and vegetation (including cork and cork products);
• Christmas trees; and
• other non-food products (e.g. gums, resins and oils).
Forest services:
• recreation;
• mitigation of climate change;
• conservation of biodiversity;
• protection of soil, water and infrastructure; and
• cultural aspects
With respect to data sources, it is important to note that the quality of the statistics used in this section is significantly lower than the quality of the statistics used elsewhere in this study. For example, there is incomplete country coverage for many of the NWFPs and forest services and there are numerous problems of comparability in the statistics produced in different countries. This is particularly a problem for the estimation of production and consumption trends.
Another problem that exists is with the aggregation of production and consumption. Strictly speaking, with the wide range of measurement units used to quantify NWFPs and forest services, the only reliable way to aggregate these statistics is to use the value of production and consumption. Information about the value of these outputs is also crucial for the forest manager and policy maker, when they come to assess the relative importance of roundwood production versus the production of these outputs in their decisions. Unfortunately, however, information about the value of these outputs is even more scarce than statistics about their quantity (indeed, in some cases, there is still considerable debate about how some of these outputs can be valued). Therefore, the presentation of information about values in this section is very brief.
Despite the problems highlighted above, the availability of information about NWFPs and forest services has improved significantly over the last decade, due to the creation of datasets related to the measurement of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. In particular the FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) and the report on the State of Europe’s Forests in 2003 (MCPFE, 2003a) have brought together the best ever dataset in this area and it is to be hoped that this improvement in statistics will be maintained in the future. The majority of the statistics presented here for recent years have been drawn from these sources, with historical information coming from a variety of earlier reports by FAO, UNECE and others.
Edible plant products from forests comprise a wide variety of tree products (fruits, nuts and edible saps) plus other edible plants that are commonly found growing in forests (e.g. mushrooms and herbs). One of the problems with statistics for these products is identifying the amount of products that have come from forests as opposed to those that have been grown in commercial orchards or non-forest areas. In addition to this, there is also the problem that a lot of production is consumed by the collectors of these products and does not appear in forestry statistics. However, despite these problems, there are quite good statistics for some of edible plant products and these can be used to assess production and consumption trends.
Forest fruits and berries. Forest fruits and berries include fruits that come from various forest tree species, plus a number of fruits that grow on shrubs and bushes that are usually part of the forest ecosystem. Information about production, consumption and trade of forest fruits and berries is scarce, but the FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) contains some statistics for the amount and value of production during the 1990s. In addition to this, statistics for a few other countries not included in FRA 2000 have been obtained from other sources (UN, 1998; Zajac et al, 2004; Chobanova et al, 2004; Bouriaud et al, 2004).
Table 10 Production of forest fruits and berries in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
Quantity statistics |
Real value statistics | ||||
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual production (in '000 MT) |
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual value (in EUR million) | |
Western Europe |
7 |
10 |
94 |
7 |
8 |
134 |
Eastern Europe |
10 |
23 |
108 |
6 |
6 |
207 |
CIS countries |
3 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
Europe |
33 |
23 |
211 |
15 |
16 |
349 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000); Zajac et al (2004); Chobanova et al (2004); and Bouriaud et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates.
The statistics for forest fruit and berry production are shown in Table 10. This table includes statistics from a variety of years during the 1990s and the values have all been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates. Where there are statistics for more than one year in a country, the average over the years has been calculated and used instead of individual values. The totals show the sum of the averages and individual values for the countries where statistics exist.
The table above includes statistics for most of the European countries where forest fruit and berry production is probably significant, with the exception of Germany, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Turkey. It shows that total annual production is about 211 thousand tonnes, with an average annual value of production of about EUR 350 million. Countries that have recorded a significant amount of forest fruit and berry production include the Scandinavian countries, Albania and the Czech Republic.
The little information that is available about trends, suggests that the majority of production in Western Europe is consumed by the collectors and that the amounts have not changed very much. However, there is some evidence that the small amounts collected commercially have declined, due to increased competition from Eastern Europe. There is slight evidence of an upward trend in production in the few Eastern European countries that have statistics for more than a single year, but there is not enough data for this to be a reliable indication of a trend.
It should also be noted that potential supply of forest fruits and berries is far higher than demand in remote and rural forest areas. For instance, it is estimated that only 10 percent of the natural yield of mushrooms and berries is currently harvested in Finland. However, natural supplies are under pressure near urban areas and especially in countries where there is a strong tradition of personal collection of edible plant products. In a few cases, restrictions have been imposed to keep the harvest at a sustainable level (e.g. harvesting limits per person, restrictions of access to certain days, etc.).
Carob. The Carob tree can be found in many Mediterranean countries and the fruit of the Carob tree is used for a variety of purposes from chocolate making to cattle feed (Ciesla, 2002). Production of this fruit is only significant in a few European countries, with approximate levels of production in the late 1990s as follows: 130,000 MT in Spain; 50,000 MT in Italy; 35,000 MT in Portugal; 20,000 MT in Greece; and 15,000 MT in Turkey. This gives a total level of production in Europe of around 250,000 MT, equal to 70 percent of the total world production of 350,000 MT.
Tree nuts. The most important tree nuts that are produced in Europe are almonds, walnuts, chestnuts and hazelnuts. Minor tree nuts include pistachios and pine nuts. Some of these nuts are collected from forests as one of a range of products, but a proportion is collected from forests and trees grown specifically for the purpose of nut production.
The FRA 2000 presents information about the amount and value of nut production for only a few countries. However, there are a lot of statistics about nut production in FAO’s statistical database (FAOSTAT), so this information is presented and analysed here.
Figure 71 Trends in production and consumption of tree nuts from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Figure 71 shows the trends in European tree nut production and consumption over the last four decades. For Europe as a whole, annual production and consumption has increased slightly, from around 1.4 million MT to 1.6 million MT in the 1960s, to 1.8 million MT to 2.0 million MT in the 1990s. Furthermore, a slight gap has developed between consumption and production, with consumption exceeding production by around 100 thousand MT per year in recent years.
At the sub-regional level, production and consumption have declined slightly in Western Europe over the last four decades. In addition, net imports into Western Europe have increased, accounting for the negative trade balance in tree nuts for Europe as a whole (production and consumption are roughly equal in the other two European sub-regions). These trends could be due to the labour intensive nature of nut collection, which has resulted in increased competition over time from other countries with lower labour costs.
Production and consumption has more than doubled in Eastern Europe since 1960, but a significant proportion of this increase is attributable to one country (Turkey). Production and consumption have increased in many of the other countries in Eastern Europe, but by much less than the average for this sub-region as a whole. Production and consumption have also increased significantly in the CIS sub-region, but the current level of production and consumption - around 100 thousand MT per year - is relatively small.
Figure 72 shows the historical trends in European tree nut production by type of nut. Production of almonds has remained roughly the same over the period, accounting for about one-quarter of total production. Production of chestnuts has declined significantly, from about 400 thousand MT per year in the 1960s to less than 200 thousand MT per year at present. Walnut production has increased very slightly and currently accounts for about 400 thousand MT per year. The greatest increase in production has occurred in the production of hazelnuts, which amounted to less than 200 thousand MT in 1960, but has since increased to an annual production level of around 700 thousand MT. Almost all of this production comes from Turkey.
Figure 72 Trends in the production of different types of tree nuts from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
International trade in tree nuts is relatively small. About 10 percent of European production is exported and most of this trade is between European countries. Net imports of tree nuts into Europe come from a variety of countries and important imports include chestnuts, walnuts and pistachios. In addition to these, there are also imports of nuts that can not be grown in Europe (e.g. Brazil nuts).
Information about the value of tree nut production in Europe is only available for a very small number of countries (UN, 2000). However, using the European trade prices, it is possible to estimate what the value of production might be. An estimate of the value of tree nut production has been calculated using the average of import and export prices for each type of tree nut and sub-region (i.e. total value of trade divided by total amount of trade) and by multiplying the production levels in 2000 by those prices.
The result of this calculation is an estimated total value of tree nut production in Europe of EUR 2,989 million in 2000. This is divided as follows: EUR 1,626 million (54 percent) in Western Europe; EUR 1,257 million (42 percent) in Eastern Europe; and EUR 106 million (four percent) in the CIS sub-region.
Mushrooms and truffles. The importance of mushroom and truffle production varies across Europe, depending on local traditions, growing conditions and the intensity of management for mushroom and truffle production. In general, it is believed that there is strong demand for mushrooms, particularly for wild mushrooms (which come from forests in most cases). However, there is also increasingly strong competition from cultivated mushrooms and truffles.
Table 11 Production of mushrooms and truffles in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
Quantity statistics |
Real value statistics | ||||
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual production (in '000 MT) |
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual value (in EUR million) | |
Western Europe |
9 |
12 |
31 |
8 |
9 |
177 |
Eastern Europe |
10 |
23 |
37 |
5 |
7 |
67 |
CIS countries |
2 |
2 |
10 |
1 |
1 |
18 |
Europe |
21 |
37 |
77 |
14 |
17 |
262 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000); Zajac et al (2004); Chobanova et al (2004); and Bouriaud et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates.
Table 11 shows an estimate of total annual production quantity and value in Europe in the 1990s. This has been calculated in the same way as described above. The totals include most of the European countries where production is probably significant, except Germany and Spain. As with forest fruits and berries, it is unknown whether these statistics include all of the mushrooms that are picked and eaten by collectors. For example, some commonly-quoted references to mushroom production in Finland only include commercial production, which is about ten percent of the estimated total production (the figures used here are an estimate of the total).
The figures show that total production may be around 77 thousand MT, with a total real value of EUR 263 million. The highest value of production occurs in Western Europe (67 percent of the total). This is almost twice the level of the value of production in Eastern Europe, where the quantity of production is higher. This is due to the collection of truffles, which have extremely high market prices. Most truffle collection in Europe takes place in France, Italy and Spain. Therefore, the absence of any statistics for Spain suggests that the total value of production in Europe could be somewhat higher than the figures presented here.
There is not sufficient information to assess trends in mushroom production. In the case of truffles though, there has been a long-term decline in production in France, which has stabilised in recent years. It is also worth noting that truffle production has probably intensified in recent years, with the establishment of truffle orchards in some places. This increase in management intensity may result in higher production in the future (in Europe and elsewhere), resulting in a fall in prices.
Other edible plant products. The production of other edible plant products is relatively minor, although individual products may be significant in specific countries (e.g. birch sap in Finland and Belarus). It is not possible to assess the volumes or values of production of these other products at the European level, due to the lack of available data.
The main animal products produced in European forests are honey, game meat and pelts (furs) and statistics on the quantity and value of production are presented here below.
Honey. One of the main problems with assessing the level of honey production from forests is to identify how much honey production is dependent on the forest resource12. For example, FAO statistics for total honey production record a level of European production that is more than ten times higher than the amounts reported in FRA 2000.
Most of the figures presented below come from the FRA 2000 (UN, 2000). In some cases, countries provided figures for honey production that only included production that takes place on FOWL. In other cases, countries provided figures for total honey production (i.e. figures that match the statistics in FAOSTAT). Even if honey production does not take place on FOWL, it may still rely on forests as a source of nectar (and could, therefore, be counted as a NWFP), so the figures below are probably an underestimate of the true quantity and value of this production.
Table 12 Production of honey in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
Quantity statistics |
Real value statistics | ||||
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual production (in '000 MT) |
No. of countries |
No. of observations |
Total annual value (in EUR million) | |
Western Europe |
4 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
Eastern Europe |
5 |
11 |
24 |
3 |
3 |
22 |
CIS countries |
3 |
3 |
<1 |
3 |
3 |
<1 |
Europe |
12 |
18 |
31 |
9 |
9 |
34 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000); Zajac et al (2004); Chobanova et al (2004); and Bouriaud et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates.
Table 12 shows that total annual production amounts to some 31 thousand MT, with a value of about EUR 34 million. However, figures are missing for many European countries in this total. This would suggest that the total volume and value of production could be several times higher than these figures. For comparison, the total volume and value of all European honey production in 2000 was 350 thousand MT and EUR 518 million.
Information about trends in honey production from FAWS is not available. However, Figure 73 shows the historical trends in the markets for honey (from all sources). This shows that there has been a gradual increase in production and consumption in the past, although this seems to have levelled-off in recent years. It is also worth noting that Western Europe is a significant net importer of honey (and Eastern Europe is a very small net exporter). Given current changes in consumer preferences towards natural and organic products, it could be suggested that the markets for honey produced from FAWS may be increasing slightly, as consumers switch towards this natural product.
Figure 73 Trends in total production and consumption of honey from 1961 to 2000
Source: derived from FAOSTAT production and trade statistics (http://faostat.external.fao.org). Note: totals for the Eastern Europe and CIS sub-regions before 1992 have been estimated from statistics for the USSR (see Section 1.4.2).
Game meat and pelts. Game meat comprises the meat of all hunted birds and mammals, such as: partridge; pheasant; hare; deer; and wild pigs. Pelts refers to the skins or furs of some of these animals, which are used to produce rugs, clothing and footwear.
Table 13 Production of game meat and pelts in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
No. of countries |
Quantity statistics |
Real value statistics | |||
Game meat production (in '000 MT) |
Game harvest numbers (in '000) |
No. of pelts (in '000) |
Annual value of meat (in EUR million) |
Annual value of pelts (in EUR million) | ||
Western Europe |
8 |
34 |
3,949 |
243 |
417 |
24 |
Eastern Europe |
9 |
22 |
881 |
14 |
19 |
<1 |
CIS countries |
2 |
3 |
6,827 |
20,684 |
3 |
n.a. |
Europe |
19 |
59 |
11,657 |
20,941 |
442 |
24 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000); Aldrian et al (2004); and Cooper et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates. It should also be noted that quantities and values are not comparable, because some countries only provided one of these figures (e.g. pelt production in the Russian Federation).
Production statistics for game meat and pelts are quite good in many countries, because licences are often required for hunting and trapping of wildlife. However, the statistics available in FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) are quite incomplete, covering only half of the countries in the Europe. Furthermore, the figures for quantity and value of production are not comparable because some countries only provided one of these figures. The most prominent example of this is the Russian Federation, which provided statistics showing a huge output of game and pelts, but could not provide any statistics for the value of this output.
Table 13 shows that average annual game production in the 1990s was about 59 thousand MT of meat, plus a further 11.6 million animals. In addition to this, annual production of pelts amounted to about 21.9 million, with the majority of production in the CIS sub-region. The total recorded value of production was EUR 466 million per year, but this is probably a large underestimation of the true value of production in these countries. For Europe as a whole, it would also seem likely that the total quantity and value of production is somewhat higher than the figures here imply.
All of the above information was supplied for only one year (or as an average of several years). Therefore, it is not possible to analyse trends in the production of game meat and pelts. However, at least one country - the Netherlands- has indicated that hunting is becoming less popular.
The size of markets for medicinal plants varies considerably across Europe. In some countries in Eastern Europe, production and consumption of medicinal plants has been significant for many years. In Western Europe, many countries do not have significant markets for medicinal plants. However, in the few countries with a market for these products (e.g. Germany and Italy) these markets can be huge.
Table 14 Production of medicinal plants in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
No. of countries |
Total annual production (in '000 MT) |
Total annual value (in EUR million) |
Western Europe |
3 |
15 |
72 |
Eastern Europe |
7 |
27 |
46 |
CIS countries |
3 |
1 |
<1 |
Europe |
13 |
43 |
118 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000); Chobanova et al (2004); and Collier et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates. It should also be noted that quantities and values are not comparable.
Table 14 shows the total quantity and value of medicinal plant production in a few European countries. These figures have been calculated in the same way as described above, from FRA 2000 statistics, plus statistics from additional sources. These statistics are probably a large underestimation of the total quantity and value of production and consumption at the regional and sub-regional level, because many countries are not included in the totals. Italy is one of the main consumer markets that is missing from these figures. In addition, the value statistics only include the value of exports from Germany and Bulgaria. At least in the case of Germany, the total size of the market is likely to be much larger than the figures included here.
There is little information available about the trends in this market, although Collier et al (2004) report that there is some evidence that production is declining in a few countries in Western Europe, due to greater competition from Eastern European countries.
Cork and cork products. Cork is used for a variety of purposes, including: bottle stoppers; floor covering; insulation; shoe soles; construction materials; and even car parts (Iqbal, 1993). Of these, bottle stoppers are by far the most valuable product manufactured from cork. In addition to the production of cork, the value of cork oak forests for conservation and amenity has also been recognised in recent years.
Natural cork is produced in only a few Mediterranean countries (France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, plus a few other countries in Southern Europe and North Africa). Portugal is the most important producer and exporter of cork, accounting for around half of total world production and exports. Furthermore, a significant cork production and processing industry has developed in Portugal, which now processes raw cork imported from other countries as well as domestic production. The management of Cork oak forests in Portugal is also very well developed, with regulations for harvesting and processing and strict quality control standards.
The FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) presents information about cork production in four countries in the 1990s. This was used to produce the figures shown in Table 15, along with additional information from the Italian State Forest Service (1990), Carvalho Mendes (2004) and Wine Business Monthly (2001).
Table 15 Recent trends in the production of natural cork in Europe
Country |
Average annual production (in '000 MT) |
Annual real value in the mid-1990s (in EUR million) | |||
1970s |
mid-1980s |
mid-1990s |
Current | ||
France |
slightly higher |
5 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
Italy |
similar |
10 |
10 |
18 |
6 |
Portugal |
similar |
170 |
135 |
185 |
130 |
Spain |
slightly higher |
90 |
85 |
88 |
65 |
Albania |
n.a. |
n.a. |
18 |
n.a. |
6 |
Europe |
slightly higher |
275 |
252 |
296 |
209 |
Sources: UN (2000); Italian State Forest Service (1990); Wine Business Monthly (2001); and Carvalho Mendes (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates.
Currently, annual production of cork is around 296 thousand MT, with a total value of production of around EUR 209 million (at 2000 prices and exchange rates). The trends indicate that production of cork has declined in France over the last few decades and, to a lesser extent, in Spain. In Italy and Portugal, production has been very variable, but has possibly increased slightly in recent years. In particular, production in Portugal was showing a declining trend until recently, but appears to have benefited from efforts to ensure high quality control standards in the industry (see Box 2).
Box 2 Increased competition from non-wood substitutes: the case of the Portuguese wine cork industry
A recent development in the market for bottle stoppers has been increased competition from the use of artificial (plastic) corks. These have been particularly popular amongst wine producers in some of the new wine producing countries. This trend has been partly driven by price, as plastic corks are generally cheaper than natural corks. However, a more significant concern has been the problem of “corked” wine, with some sources estimating that as much as five percent of wine production is affected by this problem. In response to this problem, the European associations representing the cork industry investigated the problem of wine contamination in the early-1990s (the Quercus Project). One of the recommendations of this research was that a guide of good practice in cork manufacturing should be produced. This led to the production of the “International code of cork stopper manufacturing practices” and accreditation of cork producers from 2000. The code is designed to ensure that high quality control standards are implemented throughout the cork production process, from the forest to the vineyard. Accreditation also guarantees to wine producers and bottlers that they have a product that should be free from contamination and has followed these rigorous procedures. Research has shown that the problem of contamination has been a far more important issue for cork users than price. It has also shown that there is a slight preference towards the natural cork product (although the results in this area have been mixed). It seems likely, therefore, that these improvements in quality should result in a more secure outlook for this industry in the future. |
Sources: Cork Information Bureau (2002), plus various news items.
Better information is available about trends in international trade in cork and cork products and trends in exports are shown in Figure 74. These trends appear similar to the trends in production described above. In particular, it is notable that exports have increased since the early-1980s. The total value of cork exports in 2000 was EUR 1,334 million, of which EUR 216 million was exports of raw cork and waste and EUR 1,118 million was exports of products manufactured from cork.
Figure 74 Trends in European exports of cork and cork products since 1960
Source: derived from the UN COMTRADE database, available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/default.aspx. Note: the figure includes statistics for France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, which account for almost all European exports.
Decorative foliage. Information about the quantity and value of foliage production in Europe is scarce, but the figures obtained from some recent sources are presented in Table 16. These figures are probably quite unreliable, as statistics are not available for many European countries. Based on these figures, it is estimated that the total annual amount of production could be at least 45 thousand MT, with a value of about EUR 49 million.
Table 16 Production of decorative foliage in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
No. of countries |
Total annual production (in '000 MT) |
Total annual value (in EUR million) |
Western Europe |
6 |
36 |
47 |
Eastern Europe |
2 |
9 |
2 |
CIS countries |
1 |
<1 |
n.a. |
Europe |
10 |
45 |
49 |
Sources: UN (2000); Chobanova et al (2004); Cooper et al (2004); and Collier et al (2004). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates. It should also be noted that quantities and values are not comparable and that the high figures for Albania reported in FRA 2000 are not included here (see: UN, 2000).
Other plant products. Other major plant products include bark (used to make compost and mulch), fodder and forage. The amount and value of production is unknown and probably varies significantly between countries. In FRA 2000 (UN, 2000), most countries reported that the use of forests for grazing (i.e. fodder and forage) is declining. For the five European countries that provided estimates of the value of fodder and forage production, the total annual value of production in the mid 1990s was about EUR 36 million (at 2000 prices and exchange rates).
Christmas trees are a major seasonal crop and exports of Christmas trees are significant in some countries (e.g. Denmark). The production of Christmas trees is a major activity in some locations, although it is not clear to what extent the trees come from forests as opposed to specialised horticultural plantations. For example, many Christmas trees are of a species that is not usually found in European forests (e.g. Abies nordmannia).
Slightly better information is available about the production of Christmas trees in Europe. Table 17 presents the information collected in FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) and shows that the average annual production in Europe in the mid-1990s was at least 43 million trees, with a total value of EUR 444 million (at 2000 prices and exchange rates).
Table 17 Production of Christmas trees in some European countries in the 1990s
Sub-region |
No. of countries |
Total annual production (in millions) |
Total annual value (in EUR million) |
Western Europe |
12 |
41 |
418 |
Eastern Europe |
5 |
1 |
27 |
CIS countries |
0 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
Europe |
18 |
43 |
444 |
Sources: UN (1998 and 2000). Note: all values have been converted to Euros at 2000 prices and exchange rates. It should also be noted that quantities and values are not comparable.
Information about trends in production is not available, although a few countries have increased production in recent years as part of deliberate efforts to increase this part of the sector (e.g. Ireland).
Other non-food products include beeswax and various gums, resins and essential oils produced from wood, bark and leaves. Most of these products have relatively small and specialised markets, although the value of production can be quite high. The only significant production in Europe is production of resins (mostly in Portugal, France and the Russian Federation) and Eucalyptus oil (mostly in Portugal). Resin production has declined, due to the labour costs of resin collection and competition from low-cost suppliers (China and, more recently, Brazil). There are good markets for Eucalyptus oil, but these markets are dominated by production from Australia and Europe’s share of this market is insignificant.
Table 18 summarises all of the information presented above about the value of NWFP production and compares this with the estimated total annual value of wood production in Europe in the mid-1990s from FRA 2000 (FAO, 2000). It is clear that the relative importance of NWFPs depends upon how much of the value of tree nut production should be considered as an activity that can be legitimately included as part of the forest sector (the same is true of honey production - the figures here only include the very low values reported in FRA 2000).
If the production of tree nuts is included, the production of NWFPs accounts for slightly less than one-quarter of the total value of all forest products produced in Europe. In Eastern Europe, the importance is much higher, but this is largely due to the high quantity and value of tree nuts produced in Turkey. Excluding Turkey, the contribution of NWFPs (including tree nuts) to the total value of forest product production in Eastern Europe would be about 15 percent. If tree nuts are excluded from the equation altogether, the relative importance of NWFPs falls to just slightly more than 10 percent. This is a relatively small share but, at an amount of EUR 1.9 billion, it is still quite a large amount of money.
Table 18 The total average annual value of NWFP production in Europe in the mid-1990s (in EUR million at 2000 prices and exchange rates)
Component |
Europe |
Sub-regions | ||
Western Europe |
Eastern Europe |
CIS | ||
Fruits and berries |
349 |
134 |
207 |
9 |
Tree nuts |
2,989 |
1,626 |
1,257 |
106 |
Mushrooms and truffles |
262 |
177 |
67 |
18 |
Honey |
34 |
12 |
22 |
<1 |
Game meat and pelts |
466 |
441 |
20 |
6 |
Medicinal plants |
118 |
72 |
46 |
<1 |
Cork |
209 |
203 |
6 |
0 |
Foliage |
49 |
47 |
2 |
n.a. |
Christmas trees |
444 |
418 |
27 |
n.a. |
All NWFPs |
4,921 |
3,128 |
1,654 |
139 |
All NWFPs excluding nuts |
1,932 |
1,502 |
397 |
33 |
Wood |
15,963 |
9,886 |
2,859 |
3,217 |
Importance of NWFPs |
24% |
24% |
37% |
4% |
Importance of NWFPs excluding nuts |
11% |
13% |
12% |
1% |
Note: the figures for the importance of NWFPs are the shares of NWFPs in the total value of production.
European forests are used for a wide variety of recreation activities. The most popular is simply walking in the forest, but forest recreation also includes specialised activities, such as: hunting (see Box 3); orienteering; horseback riding; mountain biking; and war games (e.g. “Paintball”).
There have been many efforts to quantify visits to forests in European countries, but these have often highlighted some of the methodological difficulties with measuring the recreational use of forests. First, there is the problem of how to collect this information. Site surveys can give reliable indications of the use of specific locations, but they often fail to capture large numbers of visitors that do not go to formal recreation sites (Schmithüsen and Wild-Eck, 2000). In contrast, household surveys usually produce much larger estimates of visitor numbers, but it is difficult to assess how many of these numbers really refer to forest visits as opposed to visits to other areas where some trees can be found.
It is also difficult to interpret forest visitor numbers, without a standard measurement unit for a visit. For example, frequent forest visitors often account for a large proportion of visits, but their visits probably tend to be much shorter in duration than those of the visitors who go less frequently. As a result of this, the most common unit used to measure visitor numbers - the number of visits per year - may not be comparable across different locations or between years.
Box 3 The importance of hunting as a source of income for forest owners
A previous section described the quantity and value of game and pelts produced from hunting in European forests. In addition to this, the value of hunting licences and trophies is also a major source of income in some areas. For example, in FRA 2000, nine countries provided figures for the value of licence fees, hunting leases and trophies amounting to about USD 75 million per year (Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia. This is likely to be a significant under-estimate of the total value of such charges in Europe, as it does not include some countries with a strong tradition of hunting (e.g. France, Germany, Italy and Spain). Revenue from hunting is often particularly important for small private forest owners and, in such cases, the revenue from hunting may outweigh the income from roundwood production. Hunting in Eastern Europe is also a significant invisible export, producing a lot of income (and foreign currency) from foreign hunters. Hunting is becoming less popular in some countries (e.g. Netherlands and the United Kingdom), due to social trends. Another concern is that the high stocking level of some game animals, notably deer, may threaten the regeneration capacity of the forest. However, it seems likely that hunting will remain popular in many countries (particularly those with a strong tradition of hunting) and will continue to be an important source of income for forest owners in the future. |
Source: UN (2000).
In the FRA 2000, both Poland and the Russian Federation indicated that visiting the forest is the country’s main leisure activity (but neither country provided estimates of total forest visitor numbers). Denmark indicated that 90 percent of adult Danes visited the forest at least once a year and Sweden reported that 47 percent of Swedes visited the forest between 1 and 20 days a year (with 40 percent visiting more than 20 days a year).
The FRA 2000 also included information about the total use of forests for recreation in a number of countries. These were all reported in terms of the number of visits or visitors to forests. In addition to this, information on visitor numbers was obtained from a variety of other sources and all of these statistics are summarised in Table 19.
Table 19 Summary of forest visitor number estimates for a number of European countries in the mid-1990s
Country |
Year |
Annual number of visits (in million) |
Annual number of visits per capita |
Source |
Comments |
Austria |
1998 |
103.7 |
12.8 |
Aldrian et al, 2004 |
Very approximate estimate, based on average frequency of visits per person. |
Denmark |
n.a. |
50.0 |
9.4 |
Helles and Thorsen, 2004 |
|
Finland |
2000 |
1.0 |
0.2 |
Erkkonen and Sievänen, 2003 |
Visits on state land only. |
Ireland |
1998 |
8.9 |
2.3 |
Clinch, 1999 |
|
Italy |
n.a. |
230.1 |
4.0 |
Pettenella et al, 2004 |
Average of four visits per year. |
Netherlands |
n.a. |
205.0 |
12.9 |
UN,2000 |
Average of 180-230 million visits per year. |
Portugal |
n.a. |
2.3 |
0.2 |
Carvalho Mendes, 2004 |
Expert opinion, based on limited available data. |
Sweden |
n.a. |
153.4 |
17.3 |
UN,2000 |
420,000 visitors per day. |
Switzerland |
n.a. |
177.7 |
24.8 |
Baruffol et al, 2003 |
Derived from average frequency of visits per person (minimum). |
United Kingdom |
n.a. |
240.0 |
4.1 |
UN,2000 |
55 million day visits to state owned lands and 185 million day visits to other public lands. |
Total/average |
1,172.0 |
6.5 |
|
| |
Czech Republic |
n.a. |
210.4 |
20.5 |
UN,1998 |
Derived from average frequency of visits per person. |
Lithuania |
1996 |
7.0 |
2.0 |
UN,2000 |
A fall from 17.8 million visitors recorded for 1990. |
Serbia and Montenegro |
n.a. |
0.5 |
<0.1 |
UN,2000 |
500,000 visitors per year to state forests. |
Turkey |
n.a. |
10.0 |
0.1 |
UN,2000 |
|
Total/average |
227.9 |
2.5 |
|
|
This table indicates that, for all of the countries shown here, the total annual number of visits to forests could be around 1.4 billion. This is equivalent to an average of 6.5 visits per person per year in Western Europe or 2.5 visits per person per year in Eastern Europe. However, the variety reported in the figures also suggests that there may be some significant differences in the methodologies and measurement techniques used to arrive at these estimates. For example, the differences in the annual number of forest visits per person are huge and there are even significant differences between countries that might be expected to have similar figures (e.g. Switzerland and Austria or Finland and Sweden).
Little information was provided on trends in visitor numbers, although Lithuania reported that visitor numbers had declined significantly between 1990 and 1996. A similar indication was reported in another report from Bulgaria (Bouriaud et al, 2004), but this also reported that visitor numbers have started to increase again. This could be explained by the dramatic fall in incomes in these countries in the early-1990s, which suggests that this may have been a common trend across all of Eastern Europe.
Although nearly all forests support some recreation activities, the most intense visitor pressure is in forests near large population centres or holiday centres. For instance, Denmark reported that 20 percent of visits occurred on two percent of the forest area while in the Netherlands, one 5,600 ha forest receives 5 million visits per year (i.e. nearly 900 visits per hectare per year) and another of 2,000 ha receives 2 million visits per year (1,000 visits per hectare per year).
In forests used intensively for recreation, there are many consequences for the forest manager, notably:
• Management should take into account aesthetic, practical and safety considerations, with measures such as: keeping older trees; providing more open spaces; reducing possible risks to forest users; and avoiding clearfelling.
• The need to provide equipment such as: benches; shelters; car parks; and notice boards.
• The need to communicate with the different user communities and the local authorities, to ascertain their needs and, sometimes, to resolve conflicts between users
These measures will tend to raise the costs of forest management (compared to management for roundwood production) and may lower income (if roundwood sales are reduced). To compensate for this, it is sometimes possible to charge specialised user groups (e.g. motor rallies, war gamers) for their use of the forest but, in general, charging may not be economically feasible because of the high cost of collecting charges. A further difficulty with charging is that there is a legal or customary right of free access to forests (especially pubic forests) in most European countries.
In some countries, an intensively used forest may receive help in some way from the forestry authorities (e.g. grants and subsidies to cover the cost of providing recreational facilities). In addition, the recreation services provided by public forests are often used to justify management regimes that are not financially viable. However, as the financial viability of forest management comes under increasing pressure and public budgets are also under stricter control, it will be necessary to make a more direct comparison between the public support given to forest managers and the benefits of forest recreation. At the very least it will be necessary to improve the estimation of visitor numbers in order to justify continued public support, if it is not possible to estimate the value of forest recreation (see Box 4). Thus, it can be expected that the recreational use of the forests will be more closely monitored and quantified in the future.
Box 4 How important is forest recreation compared to roundwood production in Europe?
Valuation of forest recreation is a subject that is even more difficult and complicated that the issue of how to count and measure visitor numbers. Numerous studies from many different countries have produced a wide range of estimates of the value of a forest visit, depending on the valuation technique used, forest characteristics and socio-economic variables (see: Wibe (1994), for a comprehensive review of the literature in Europe). Given these difficulties, countries were not asked to provide value figures in FRA 2000. However, with estimates of the number of forest visits, it is possible to ask the question: how important is forest recreation at various levels of value per visit? The table above suggested an average frequency of visits to forests of 6.5 per person per year in Western Europe. Multiplying this by total population, it would suggest that around 2.6 billion visits are made to forests each year in the whole of Western Europe. Assuming an average value per visit of EUR 1.00, this would amount to an annual value of EUR 2.6 billion, compared with a total annual value of wood production of EUR 9.9 billion. Thus, under this assumption, the value of forest recreation would be about one-quarter of the value of wood production. Of course, there would be huge variations between countries, with small densely-populated countries with low forest cover (e.g. Netherlands and the United Kingdom) having a much higher value of forest recreation compared to wood production. Other countries, such as Sweden and Finland, would be in the opposite position. In Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region, the estimated frequency of visits is lower (assuming that this is the same in the CIS sub-region as in Eastern Europe) and it could be assumed that the value of a visit would be lower (due to lower incomes). Assuming an average value per visit of EUR 0.25, the annual value of forest recreation in Eastern Europe would be EUR 120 million (compared with the figure of EUR 2,859 for wood) and in the CIS sub-region it would be EUR 130 million (compared with the figure of EUR 3,217 for wood). These estimates of recreation value would both be less than five percent of the value of wood production. Of course, the above figures are highly speculative. However, they probably indicate the magnitude of the difference between the value of forest recreation and the value of wood production. They also give an indication of the differences in the relative importance of forest recreation between sub-regions (and countries). |
The FRA 2000 (UN, 2000) contains a considerable amount of information about the levels and changes in carbon stocks in Europe’s forests. Therefore, the text below describes only some of the most important features of recent developments in this area. It is currently not possible to estimate the relative importance of this forest service, although a value for carbon storage in forests may emerge in the near future.
Trends in carbon storage in forests. Changes in the global carbon cycle are believed to be the cause of ongoing change in the global climate. Forests are one of the major elements in the carbon cycle, being the largest terrestrial biotic carbon store and a significant source and sink of carbon flows. Deforestation, mostly in the topics, is one of the major sources of carbon entering the atmosphere (equal to about a fifth of the carbon emissions from combustion of fossil fuels). On the other hand, growing trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, so if a forest is managed for sustained yield (i.e. where the growing stock does not diminish over time) it does not increase atmospheric carbon. Furthermore, if the growing stock increases, then the forest actually takes carbon from the atmosphere.
Because of continuing deforestation, the forests in tropical areas are, overall, a source of carbon. However, forests in Europe are large carbon sinks. Information collected in FRA 2000 suggested that the carbon stored in European forests (woody biomass only, not counting soils or other vegetation) amounts to 47 billion MT, of which 37 billion MT (80 percent) is in the Russian Federation. Furthermore, because European forests are expanding in area and removals are currently less than increment, the carbon in woody biomass in Europe is estimated to be expanding at present at a rate of 556 million MT per year (of which 440 MT per year occurs in the Russian Federation).
The above figures should be treated with some caution, however, because there is a large area of uncertainty about the carbon content of forest soils, which are one of the largest carbon stocks. The volume of carbon in different types of forest soil is not well known and it appears that certain silvicultural practices, such as ploughing or draining peat soils, may release large amounts of carbon. This has important implications for the benefits of carbon storage in forests under different forest management regimes.
Other carbon benefits from the forest sector. In addition to issues linked strictly to the forest ecosystem’s role in carbon cycles, there are also other considerations. For example, carbon is stored in forest products, sometimes for a long time (e.g. in houses and books). Forest products may also reduce carbon emissions by replacing products that result in more carbon emissions during their production, distribution, use and recycling. In addition, wood products produced from a sustainably managed forest are carbon neutral, which will also tend to further reduce total carbon emissions. All of these considerations are highly dependent on how wood products are produced and used, so life cycle analysis of the carbon “footprint” of different products must be carefully analysed before policy decisions are taken.
Box 5 Is a market emerging for carbon storage in forests?
The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1997 and signatories have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, notably from fossil fuels, with quantitative commitments for the developed countries. Within certain strict limits, they are also allowed to offset their carbon emissions by “human induced” measures to increase carbon sequestration. Afforestation and reforestation projects can be counted against the commitments for limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised countries. Therefore, capturing and maintaining carbon in forest ecosystems may be set against carbon emissions, provided that these measures are monitored by a third party and are not considered normal silviculture. The Protocol also allows emitters of carbon to pay others to sequester carbon on their behalf (and to claim the credit for doing so though, for example, a system of tradeable permits). Thus, a market in carbon emissions permits is likely to develop in the future. |
Various studies on the role of forests show that the preservation of the natural environment and biodiversity, as well as the protective functions of forests, are widely recognised and highly valued by the European public (Rametsteiner and Kraxner, 2003). Over the last two decades, the biodiversity functions of forests have also been highly visible in policy debates and European governments have made many public commitments to maintain and preserve forest biodiversity.
Measurement of the output and value of this forest service is extremely difficult. For example, biological diversity should be maintained at the ecosystem, species and genetic level. However, the natural biodiversity of ecosystems varies widely, so it is not sufficient to count species. Instead, it is more important to monitor trends in biodiversity. This is also difficult, but progress in this area is being achieved by monitoring a number of different indicators, such as the following:
• direct indicators (e.g. number of species or ecosystems, degree of genetic variation, etc.);
• features that and known to have a clear relationship with biodiversity (e.g. the presence of dead wood and of certain indicator species);
• measures taken to protect biodiversity (e.g. the establishment of protected forest areas);
• the species composition of the forests; and
• the degree of human intervention (e.g. the presence or absence of introduced species).
The desirable values of each of these indicators will, of course, vary according to the ecosystem in question. However, taken together, it is now possible to provide some indications of the current status of biodiversity in European forests. The following presents a summary of some of the main features of forest biodiversity in Europe from the State of Europe’s Forests in 2003 (MCPFE, 2003a).
• Vast forests undisturbed by man exist in the Russian Federation (260 million ha or 32 percent of the country’s forest resources), along with significant areas in the Nordic countries (about 8 million ha). A few other countries (e.g. Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Slovenia) have large undisturbed forests, but elsewhere in Europe there are only small and scattered remnants of undisturbed forest.
• More than two-thirds of Europe’s forests are “semi-natural”, but this definition includes a wide range of ecosystems from nearly undisturbed to quite intensively managed forests. The common feature of these forests is that their ecological dynamics have been influenced by human intervention, but they have kept their natural characteristics to some extent.
• About 40 percent of Europe’s forests are “mixed”.13 Predominantly coniferous forests occur mostly in the boreal zone (Russian Federation and the Nordic countries), as well as in Central Europe (Austria, Germany and Poland) and Turkey. In the Nordic countries, there is evidence that the share of predominantly coniferous forests has reduced, due to an increase in mixed and predominantly broadleaved forests. It is thought that this may have occurred as a reaction to the widely expressed belief that there is more biodiversity in mixed forests.
• Many plant and animal species in European forests are threatened, but the data are not yet fully validated or comparable, so it is difficult to assess the seriousness of the situation.
• The regeneration method used will strongly influence the biodiversity of the forest: natural regeneration will conserve genetic diversity and tend to maintain species composition. Among reporting countries, two-thirds of regeneration in recent years has been natural regeneration, with natural regeneration accounting for over half of all regeneration in: Albania; Austria; Croatia; Russian Federation; Slovenia; and Switzerland. This does not include areas under continuous cover systems, which will also tend to maintain genetic diversity.
• Introduced tree species are often used in Europe, although there are no reliable data about the extent to which they have replaced domestic species. In total, about 200,000 ha of introduced species are planted annually (about 20 percent of the area afforested).
• Based on data from 34 European countries, 127 million ha (or 12 percent of the FOWL area in those countries) is protected for biodiversity or for landscape. Of this 127 million ha, three percent of the area has no active intervention and another three percent has minimum intervention, 79 percent is actively managed for conservation management and 15 percent is in landscape protection areas. In addition, in the EU, the Natura 2000 programme has set-aside large areas for biodiversity conservation.
It is necessary to point out, once again, the extraordinary variation in European forests with respect to biodiversity. They range from forests in densely populated regions that have been intensively managed for roundwood production and recreation over hundreds of years, to vast expanses of completely natural forest with undiminished biodiversity. This should be taken into account when considering the relative importance of biodiversity as measured though indicators such as those above.
Most forests perform some protective functions related to regulating water flow or preventing erosion, not to mention micro-climatic functions, such as shelter from wind, sun, noise or dust. In many regions, these protective functions are of marginal importance compared to wood production, recreational services or biodiversity conservation (see Figure 12). However, in some areas (notably mountains), protective functions are extremely valuable.
Without the presence of a stable forest ecosystem in mountains, erosion would occur, leading to a loss of soil and soil fertility and destruction of settlements, transport infrastructure and other parts of the forest. Ultimately, without forests, mountain areas would become uninhabitable and the long-term consequences (e.g. in the form of uncontrolled flooding, siltation, etc.) could extend far downstream.
Recognition of the value of the protective functions of forests played a vital role in reversing the deforestation trend in Europe in the nineteenth century. At that time, many forests in mountain areas had been over-exploited and were losing their integrity. As a consequence, local and downstream communities suffered the negative consequences of erosion, dangerous floods and landslides. The realisation of these dangers caused European countries to enact strict forest laws and to institute long-term public programmes to protect and re-establish forest cover in sensitive areas. For example, the French programme “Restoration des terrains de montagne” was started in the mid-nineteenth century and continues today in what is probably the longest ever reforestation programme. Thus, in mountain regions, the protective functions of forests play an important and symbolic role and are important in defining the general public’s view of forest issues.
It is very difficult to quantify the importance of the protection functions of forests, because most forests (even in fragile mountain ecosystems) produce multiple outputs. Sometimes the necessity to maintain protective functions is a compulsory management objective. Elsewhere, protective functions are produced as a by-product of forest management.
In 2003, the approved the “Assessment guidelines for protected and protective forest and other wooded land in Europe”, which has a separate category for FOWL where the main management objective is the maintenance of protective functions (MCPFE, 2003b). To be included in this category implies the following: the existence of a legal basis for the management objective, a long term commitment (minimum 20 years) and explicit designation of the functions in question. For Class 3 (protective functions), the main objectives and management restrictions are that forest management should be clearly directed to protect soil and its properties or water quality and quantity or to protect infrastructure and managed natural resources against natural hazards. In addition, forest management must ensure that any operation negatively affecting these functions is prevented.
According to the first survey of protected and protective forests following these guidelines, there are 125 million ha of designated protective forest (i.e. MCPFE Class 3) in Europe, of which 100 million ha is in the Russian Federation. More than 1 million ha are classified as protective forest in Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the Ukraine. In Austria, 24 percent of FOWL is in this category and in Switzerland the amount is over 60 percent.
Recent severe and exceptional floods (e.g. in Central Europe in 2002 or Southern France in 2003) have attracted public attention to the question of the management of mountain watersheds, especially as the exceptional rainfall that caused the floods was attributed by some to climate change. Although there is no suggestion that poor forest management or lack of forest cover was even a contributory factor in these floods, they have drawn the public’s attention to the necessity of maintaining stable forest ecosystems in mountain regions. This may be used to justify public support (i.e. funding) for forest management in these regions, where costs are significantly higher than in other locations.
European forests have enormous cultural importance, from their role in legends and fairy tales to their place in the symbolism of Romantic poets. They also include historical and archaeological sites and are used as places for contemplation or ceremony. Many countries have historical sites and monuments related to forests, giant or unusual trees and sites for special ceremonies and customs. A number of countries have special legislation or other programmes to protect cultural and spiritual values, as well as inventories of such sites.
By their very nature, the cultural and spiritual values of forests are often subjective, localised and abstract in nature. As such they can not be easily quantified and aggregated in the same way that many other figures have been in this study. Furthermore, it is even less likely that they can be evaluated in monetary terms or analysed.
There is at present no quantitative information on this forest service, but there is an increasing awareness of the importance of cultural and spiritual aspects of forests, which directly appeal to public opinion. In view of this, countries will start to record information about the number of sites within FOWL that are designated as having cultural or spiritual values (for reporting to the MCPFE).
As already noted in Section 1.3.1, government policies have a significant impact on the forest sector, both in terms of their direct impact on the way that forests are managed and their indirect impact on the sector through alterations to the markets for forest products and services. It would be beyond the scope of the EFSOS to produce a comprehensive analysis of recent trends in forestry policies (let alone an analysis of trends in all government policies). Furthermore, as with some aspects of forest management, it would be very difficult to measure trends or changes in forestry policies in the past. However, it is possible to mention some of the main features of forestry policies in Europe and describe how they have changed in recent years.
The following text focuses mainly on forestry policies and is divided into two parts. The first describes some general aspects of forestry policies in European countries that have probably not changed by very much in the past, while the second describes a few areas where there have been some quite significant changes in recent years.
Information on forestry polices in Europe over the last two decades is available in publications such as FAO (1988), Peck and Descargues (1997), Schmithüsen (2000), Bauer et al (2004) and UN (2001a), as well as the FRA 1990 and FRA 2000 (UN, 1993 and 2000). A review of these publications reveals that there are some aspects of European forestry policy that have remained remarkably stable in the past.
Non-declining forest area. One of the main pillars of forestry policy in most European countries is the principle that the forest area should not decline. For example, a recent review of forest legislation in Europe (Bauer et al, 2004) shows that many European countries have specific legal measures that support this objective by ensuring that forests are replanted after harvesting. The review also shows that most other countries have rules or regulations to control forest management and harvesting that tend to serve the same purpose. In addition, the deliberate conversion of forest to other land uses is generally quite difficult in most European countries.
Evidence of the success of these policies is given by the forest area statistics from the FRA 2000 and previous forest resource assessments, which show that the forest area in Europe has consistently increased in almost all countries in Europe in the recent past (see, for example, Section 2.1). Furthermore, the results of national forest inventories from the last 50 years suggests that this objective of forestry policy in Europe has been in place (and has been achieved) over a much longer historical time period (see Section 2.1.2). Given the current interest in taking land out of agriculture (especially in Western Europe), it seems likely that forestry policy in Europe will continue to emphasise and achieve this objective.
Multi-purpose forest management. A second aspect of forestry policy in many European countries is the principle that forests should be managed to produce a wide range of benefits to society. Again, there is a long tradition of multi-purpose forest management or “multi-functionality” in many European countries, supported by policies that encourage public access to forests, legal protection of a number of important forest functions or services and measures to support increased production of specific non-market benefits from forests. Evidence of the importance of multi-functionality is given by the statistics in earlier sections of this report, which show that European forests are managed for a number of different objectives and that the production of non-wood forest products and services remains significant in many countries.
Support for afforestation and forest management. A third feature of forestry policies in Europe is the level of public support given to the sector. A number of European countries have offered some form of incentives for forestry for many years (for example, see FAO (1988) for details of forestry incentive schemes in a number of European countries in the late 1980s). Forestry incentives have included: favourable tax treatment of the income from forest operations; subsidies to cover part of the costs of afforestation, forest management or specific forestry activities; and, more recently, compensation payments to cover the loss of income from afforestation of agricultural land.
The level of incentives for forestry in Europe is quite high, as is shown in Figure 75. This shows the total level of forestry incentives paid from 1990 to 1999 to eleven European countries (Belgium; Finland; France; Germany; Netherlands; Portugal; Switzerland; Czech Republic; Estonia; Poland; and Slovenia). It includes national grant schemes, the costs of favourable tax treatment, other national subsidies and some, but not all, EC support to the sector. The average annual total level of incentives for the sector is about EUR 6 billion (at 2000 prices and exchange rates). For comparison, the total value of wood production in these eleven countries in the mid-1990s was about EUR 7 billion (at 2000 prices and exchange rates).
Figure 75 Incentives for forestry in eleven European countries from 1990 to 1999
Source: EFFE (2003). Note: the eleven countries included in these figures are: Belgium; Finland; France; Germany; Netherlands; Portugal; Switzerland; Czech Republic; Estonia; Poland; and Slovenia.
These levels of support look a lot higher than the figures quoted in FAO (1988). In addition to this, the EU has also started to offer significant amounts of forestry incentives since the early-1990s. Up until 1992, the EC provided support for specific forestry activities in only a few locations but, with the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2080/92 in 1992, the EC increased the geographical scope and level of financial support significantly (Lawson et al, 1998).
The objective of EC support for forestry has been to promote afforestation as an alternative use of agricultural land. It has included: payments to cover part of the costs of afforestation and forest management; payments to compensate for the loss of income from converting agricultural land to forests; and payments to cover part of the costs of specific investments in woodland improvement.
Total EC support under Regulation 2080/92 is estimated at EUR 1,519 million over the period 1993 to 1999 or about EUR 217 million per year (Seoane, 2002). Further support is planned under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/99 for the period 2000 to 2006. The total planned EC contribution over this period is estimated at EUR 4,738 million or about EUR 677 million per year. It should be noted that these amounts are only the contribution from the EC to national forestry incentive schemes. In most countries, forestry incentive schemes also include significant additional amounts of funding from domestic government resources in addition to the funds available from the EC (e.g. national funding sources account for about 93 percent of the total shown in Figure 75).
It should also be noted that public financial support for forestry is not restricted to countries in the EU. For example, in a review of state forest enterprises in 11 countries in Eastern Europe, Simula (2003) shows that four countries spend more than they earn from forestry, four make a very modest profit and only three have a level of income that is more than 10 percent higher than their level of expenditure. Many of these countries have introduced reforms to increase the efficiency of state forest enterprises, but these figures show that they still have some way to go to create economically viable forest enterprises.
In contrast to the stability of the three major aspects of forestry policy described above, there have also been a number of recent changes to forestry policy in European countries. In particular, the following two policy changes appear to have occurred in many if not most countries and are starting to have an impact on the sector.
Public participation. A trend towards greater public involvement in policy-making has been noted all over the World in many different areas of government policy. This trend is described succinctly by Fraser (2004), who states that: “there is a tendency to think of policy as a matter for governments, but it is now more widely appreciated that all shareholders in the forest sector have a legitimate interest in both the policy objectives and the means that will be used to implement it”. This trend in the forest sector is part of a broader trend in governance that has appeared in many countries with measures such as the decentralisation of government policy making and policy implementation and devolution of power to regional, state and local public bodies.
A recent review of forestry policies in Europe (UN, 2001a) states that public participation in forestry policy is increasing in most European countries and provides a number of examples of changes in policies and legislation to support this statement. Another study (ILO, 2000) provides further examples of how these policies are being implemented on the ground in a variety of different ways. Based on reports such as these, it seems likely that there has been a trend towards greater public participation in the sector and that this trend will continue into the future. An important advantage of public participation is not only that it helps find acceptable solutions to values-based conflicts on forestry issues, but helps to build bridges to “non-forest” issues and values. National forest programmes, which are increasingly seen as one of the main policy tools, in Europe as elsewhere, are essentially mechanisms for structured public participation with a particular emphasis on the cross-sectoral dimension
Public ownership and management of forests. The FRA 2000 and FRA 1990 present information about the distribution of FOWL between public and private ownership. Unfortunately, it is not possible to produce reliable numerical estimates of these changes, due to differences in measurement and the wide range of reference periods used to compile these statistics. However, it is possible to assess broad changes over the last two decades from the changes reported by countries.
Over the last two decades in Western Europe, the proportion of FOWL in public ownership has declined in 10 of the 18 countries, remained about the same in four countries and increased in four countries. The four countries where the proportion of public ownership appears to have increased are relatively small (e.g. Luxembourg and The Netherlands) and in at least one case - the United Kingdom - it is likely that the change is due to differences in the measurement of total FOWL area between the two reference periods, rather than a real change in the structure of forest ownership.
This trend towards gradually more private ownership of forests in Western Europe has been driven by two forces. In a few countries (notably Sweden and the United Kingdom) some of the public forest estate has been privatised over the last 20 years. However, the contribution of this to the total change at the sub-regional level is quite small. A much more important factor has been the significant increase in the privately owned FOWL area in recent years due to afforestation of bare land. This has increased in nearly all countries in Western Europe over the last two decades, at a very approximate rate of around 1 million ha per year.
The structure of forest ownership in Eastern Europe has also changed over the last decade, with nine out of the 16 countries reporting a fall in the proportion of FOWL in public ownership, four reporting no change and three reporting an increase. The three countries where public ownership appears to have increased are all countries of the former Yugoslavia, where the comparison has been made between the level of public ownership reported in FRA 2000 and the level of public ownership reported for Yugoslavia in FRA 1990. In reality, public ownership may not have actually increased in these countries.
In Eastern Europe, the change in public ownership has been largely driven by the restitution of public forests to their former private forest owners. The Baltic States, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia all show increases in the private forest estate that are matched by a fall in the area of FOWL in public ownership. This has resulted in the creation of a large number of private forest owners, many of whom now own relatively small areas of forest. In addition to this, in a few countries, the private forest area has actually increased beyond the areas transferred as part of the restitution process. This is presumably due to natural regeneration on abandoned agricultural land and, in a few cases, the deliberate afforestation of bare land.
The CIS sub-region is the one part of Europe that has not followed this trend towards reduced public ownership of FOWL. In this sub-region, 100 percent of the FOWL area remains in public ownership.
Changing role of state forest organisationsIn addition to the trends in public ownership reported above, there is also evidence of a change in policy in several countries with respect to the management of forests that remain in public ownership. For example, many European countries, including, to different degrees, and against differing legal and social backgrounds, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Latvia, have reorganised their state forest management organisations14, to function as quasi-private companies, with clearly defined commercial objectives and much more operational freedom than the previous structure which was more administrative in spirit. These state owned companies have become more efficient (leading in particular to reduced employment), with a more entrepreneurial spirit (e.g. operating abroad as management consulting companies), and have insisted on a clearer definition of which public goods and services they should supply and on what terms, as it is no longer possible simply to absorb the provision of public services within an enterprise whose main income comes from wood sales. In many cases, these management roles have been clearly separated from the supervisory and policy functions of public forest administrations.
One measure of the contribution of the forest sector to society is the contribution of the sector to GDP and exports. This is also an indicator of the economic dimension of sustainable forest management. In addition to this, employment in the forest sector is an indicator of the social dimension of sustainable forest management.
One of the studies prepared as part of the EFSOS examined trends in forest sector employment (Blombäck et al, 2003). A more recent study by FAO (Lebedys, in prep) expanded on this to include an analysis of trends in value-added and exports from the sector. The main findings of these two reports are presented here below.
Figure 76 shows the trends in forest sector employment in Europe over the last decade. The height of each bar represents the total number of people employed (in full-time equivalents15), measured against the axis on the left-hand side of the figure. The bars also indicate the level of employment in each of the three main components of the forest sector. These are defined according to the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), where forestry includes forest management and harvesting, and woodworking includes the production of sawnwood and wood based panels.16 The line shows the total contribution to employment, measured as the number of people employed in the forest sector divided by the total workforce (i.e. economically active population).
The figure shows that total employment in the sector has declined slightly in Europe over the last decade, from a figure of 4.3 million in 1990 to 3.9 million in 2000. Similarly, the contribution to employment has also declined slightly from around 1.1 percent to 1.0 percent over the same period.
This decline has occurred for two reasons. Firstly, improvements in labour productivity have resulted in a reduction in the demand for labour, particularly in the two forest processing sectors. The second reason for this decline has been the reduction in production over the last decade in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region.
Another interesting feature of this figure is the distribution of employment between the different components of the sector. Broadly speaking, employment was divided almost equally between the three components of the sector in 1990, with a slightly higher proportion of people employed in the woodworking industries. By 2000, employment in forestry and manufacturing of paper and paperboard had both shrunk, while employment in the woodworking industries had remained about the same. Thus, the woodworking industry now accounts for a much greater share of total employment in the forest sector.
At the sub-regional level, all three sub-regions show some subtle differences in the trends and structure of employment in the forest sector and these are shown in Figure 77 to Figure 79 and discussed in the text below.
Figure 76 Trends in employment in the European forest sector from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 77 Employment in the forest sector in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 77 shows the trends in forest sector employment in Western Europe over the last decade. Western Europe accounts for slightly less than half of total European employment in the sector. Employment has declined from slightly over 1.8 million in 1990 to 1.7 million in 2000. The contribution of the sector to total employment is also much lower than in the rest of Europe and has fallen more dramatically. In 2000, only about 0.9 percent of the workforce was employed in forestry, compared with a figure of almost 1.1 percent in 1990.
Much of this decline has occurred in paper and paperboard manufacturing, where productivity gains have reduced the demand for labour. A slight decrease in forestry employment has also occurred. It is also notable that employment in forestry accounts for a relatively small share of total employment in the sector.
Figure 78 presents the same information for Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe accounts for about one-quarter of forest sector employment in Europe and total employment has fallen significantly, from over 1.2 million in 1990 to under 1.0 million in 2000. The contribution of the sector to total employment is higher than elsewhere, but has fallen dramatically from over 1.4 percent in 1990 to under 1.1 percent in 2000.
Employment has fallen across all three components of the sector, broadly in line with the reduction in output. The exception to this is employment in forestry, which has declined at the same time that production has increased. This suggests that labour productivity has increased over the last decade, but there are many differences in these trends at the country level. It is also notable that employment in forestry accounts for a much greater share of the total than elsewhere. This is due to one country - Turkey - where employment has been increasing and now accounts for over half of all forestry employment in Eastern Europe.
Figure 79 shows the trends in forest sector employment in the CIS sub-region over the last ten years. The CIS sub-region also accounts for about 25 percent of total European employment in the forest sector. In this sub-region, employment has varied over the last decade, but has not increased or decreased overall. The average level of employment has been slightly less than 1.2 million, or just under 1.1 percent of the total workforce. In the CIS sub-region, the woodworking industries account for around 50 percent to 60 percent of total employment in the sector.
A final point worth noting about the differences in employment between the sub-regions is the vast differences in labour productivity that exist. For example, Western Europe produces about twice as much industrial roundwood as each of the other two sub-regions, but employs fewer people in forestry. In the processing sectors, the differences are even greater, with labour productivity in Western Europe between two and four times higher than in the other two sub-regions. This is an indication of the differences in the structure of production costs in the different sub-regions. It also suggests that producers in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region will face some interesting challenges as incomes increase in these countries in the future.
Figure 78 Employment in the forest sector in Eastern Europe from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 79 Employment in the forest sector in the CIS sub-region from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Value-added is the total value of all goods and services produced by the sector less the costs of all purchases from other sectors in the economy. Value-added is the surplus value from production that is distributed to investors and employees in the form of rents, profits and wages. The total value-added by all sectors in the economy is also the total value of all output or GDP.
Figure 80 shows the real (i.e. inflation adjusted) trends in value-added in the European forest sector over the last decade. This shows that total value-added has declined in real terms from around EUR 115 billion in 1990 to EUR 100 billion in 2000. Furthermore, the contribution of the sector to GDP has declined from 1.5 percent to 1.1 percent over the same period.
Figure 80 Trends in value-added in the European forest sector from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Paper and paperboard manufacturing accounts for the greatest share of value-added in the forest sector and the decline in value-added in this sector accounts for most of the decline for the sector as a whole. Value-added in this sector has also varied a lot over the last decade. This is due to the cyclical nature of the pulp and paper industry. Increased global competition in the markets for pulp and paper is likely to continue to put downward pressure on value-added in this sector in the future.
Value-added in forestry has also declined over the last decade, but the figure for 1990 is unusual in that it reflects the high level of roundwood production in that year. Excluding this year, the level of value-added in forestry has not changed by very much over the last decade. Similarly, the value-added in the woodworking industries is the same in 2000 as it was in 1990.
Again, there is considerable variation between the three European sub-regions and this is discussed below.
Figure 81 Value-added in the forest sector in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 81 shows the trends in forest sector value-added in Western Europe over the last decade. Western Europe accounts for a huge proportion (around 90 percent) of the value-added in the sector in Europe, so the trends here are very similar to those presented above. Total value-added has declined from around EUR 100 billion in 1990 to slightly less than EUR 90 billion in 1990.
In Western Europe, value-added in the woodworking industries has remained unchanged over the period at around EUR 30 billion. Excluding 1990, value-added in forestry has also remained about the same, at a level of EUR 12 billion to EUR 13 billion. Value-added in paper and paperboard manufacturing has declined slightly from EUR 54 billion in 1990 to EUR 46 billion in 2000. This distribution of value-added across the three component of the forest sector (with a ratio of 4:2:1 between paper and paperboard, woodworking and forestry) is typical of the forest sector in most developed countries.
In Eastern Europe, value-added in the forest sector is relatively more important to national economies and has not fallen by as much as in other part of Europe (see Figure 82). The figure shows a decline in 1990 to 1991, which is probably due to the fall in production in these countries in the early 1990s. After this, it appears that value-added has increased slightly over the rest of this decade.
The figure also shows that the distribution of value-added is almost equal between the three components of the forest sector, with slightly less in paper and paperboard manufacturing. This is an indication of the sectors that may be most competitive in Eastern Europe, which are forestry and woodworking rather than paper and paperboard manufacturing.
Figure 82 Value-added in the forest sector in Eastern Europe from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 83 Value-added in the forest sector in the CIS sub-region from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
Figure 83 presents the same information about value-added for CIS sub-region. The trends show the significant decline across all components of the forest sector after the economic shocks of the early 1990s. However, in the case of the CIS sub-region, the effect of these shocks was much greater and the sector has taken a lot longer to recover. There is some indication of an increase in value-added after 1996, but the upward trend is not strong.
In the CIS sub-region, forestry appears to be the one component of the forest sector that has suffered the least over the last decade and has, in fact, increased the value-added from activities. Value-added in both of the processing sectors fell in the early-1990s, gradually in the woodworking industries and very sharply in paper and paperboard manufacturing. These sectors now appear to be recovering slowly.
It is also worth noting that the contribution of the forest sector to GDP is lower here than in the other two sub-regions. This is surprising, given the importance of production in the CIS sub-region at the European level and the traditional image of the scale and importance of the forest sector in this sub-region. However, this is likely to reflect the increased importance of other extractive industries in this sub-region (particularly oil and gas) and the greater contribution that they have made to GDP in recent year.
Comparing the trends between the three sub-regions, these figures show an even more startling difference in the levels of productivity. Value-added per employee and value-added per unit of output are an order of magnitude lower in Eastern Europe and the CIS sub-region compared with Western Europe. At the moment, this makes these countries very cost competitive in the production of basic forestry products. The challenge for these countries will be to develop the skills and attract the investment necessary to increase value-added in the forest sector in the future.
Section 2.6 described many of the features of the historical trends in forest products trade in Europe over the last few decades. This section describes the importance of forest products trade to economies in terms of the contribution of forest products exports to total exports of goods (i.e. merchandise exports).
Figure 84 shows the historical trend in the contribution of forest products to merchandise exports in Europe since 1980. In contrast to the figures for employment and value-added, this figure shows that forest products are quite important exports for European economies. Over the last two decades, forest products have accounted for between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent of all merchandise exports (by value) and this trend has not moved upwards or downwards.
Western Europe accounts for the vast majority of forest products trade in Europe, so the trends in this sub-region closely match those for Europe as a whole. In Eastern Europe, there is a notable upward trend in the importance of forest products exports. This occurred during the early 1990s and appears to have levelled-off in recent years at about 3.3 percent. The importance of forest products exports from the CIS sub-region has always been higher than the average in Europe, accounting for about 3.5 percent of the value of all merchandise exports. This figure has varied widely over the last two decades, but shows a trend that is neither increasing nor decreasing.
These figures suggest that the forest sector is important in many countries as a source of export income and that this importance has been relatively stable in the past. It has already been noted that forest products trade is increasing, so it seems likely that the importance of forest products to trade balances will also continue into the future.
Figure 84 Trends in the importance of forest products exports in Europe from 1990 to 2000
Source: Lebedys (in prep).
3 Note: the analysis here does not go beyond these products. There are a range of further processed wood products (e.g. wooden furniture) that could be considered as part of the forest sector, but information is not readily available about the trends in production and consumption of these products.
4 It should be noted that the definition of wood chips and particles used for production now only includes the production of these materials from industry processing waste and does not include the production of wood chips and particles made from roundwood. The latter should be included as part of pulpwood, round and split. . In trade statistics, it is of course not possible to record the origin (forest or industry, even recovered wood) of the chips which cross a frontier.
5 Other industrial roundwood is roundwood that is used without further processing and includes products such as: utility poles; fence posts; and roundwood used in the mining industry as pit props.
6 Note that, for pulp trade, countries have been divided into two groups for each year: net exporters and net importers. The wood required to produce net pulp exports is shown here only for those countries that are net pulp exporters. For the countries that are net importers of pulp, the wood raw material equivalents of these imports are shown in the later figures (i.e. as a source of fibre rather than a demand for fibre).
7 To avoid confusion between the availability of residues and the production of residues, the word “utilisation” is used here rather than production. This means the use of wood residues either for domestic consumption or export.
8 The value of forest products exports from Western Europe was slightly less than the value of imports in 2000, but the Western European share of global exports exceeded the Western European share of global imports. This is due to the different measurement conventions used for export and import values (i.e. FOB versus CIF).
9 Tij = (xij/Xit)/(xwj/Xwt); where Tij is the Trade Intensity Index between location i and j; xij and xwj are the values of location i's exports and of world exports to location j; and Xit and Xwt are location i's total exports and total world exports respectively.
10 The Revealed Comparative Advantage for product j in country i is measured by the product's share in total exports compared with the country’s share of total world trade: RCAij = (xij/Xit)/(xwj/Xwt); where RCAij is the comparative advantage of product j in country i; xij and xwj are the values of country i's exports of product j and world exports of product j; and Xit and Xwt refer to the country's total exports and world total exports.
11 A GDP deflator is a measure of general price inflation in a country. GDP deflators were used to convert nominal prices in each country to real prices measured against the general price level in the year 2000.
12 For instance, even if the beehives are in the forest or on the forest edge, the bees will take pollen from plants inside and outside the forest. Is the resulting honey a “forest product”?
13 Where neither coniferous or broadleaved species account for more than 75 percent of crown cover.
14 In some countries, such as France and UK, a similar arrangement has been in place for some time.
15 So, for instance, two people working half time count as one “full time equivalent”
16 Note: the ISIC definitions of the three main components of the forest sector are slightly different to the definitions used in the rest of this report, as they include some processing activities under “woodworking” and “paper and paperboard” that go beyond manufacturing products included here (e.g. production of cardboard boxes). However, these additional activities are negligible.
