BackgroundEuropean forests have a long record of management. However, the diversity of the current forest management across nations, tree species and owners, is hardly understood. Often when trying to simulate future forest resources under alternative futures, simply the yield table style of harvesting is applied. It is now crucially important to come to grips with actual forest management, now that demand for wood is increasing and the EU Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation has been adopted requiring ‘continuation of current management practices’ as a baseline to set the Forest Reference Level carbon sink.MethodsBased on a large dataset of 714,000 re-measured trees in National Forest inventories from 13 regions, we are now able to analyse actual forest harvesting.ConclusionsFrom this large set of repeated tree measurements we can conclude that there is no such thing as yield table harvesting in Europe. We found general trends of increasing harvest probability with higher productivity of the region and the species, but with important deviations related to local conditions like site accessibility, state of the forest resource (like age), specific subsidies, importance of other forest services, and ownership of the forest. As a result, we find a huge diversity in harvest regimes. Over the time period covered in our inventories, the average harvest probability over all regions was 2.4% yr-1 (in number of trees) and the mortality probability was 0.4% yr-1. Our study provides underlying and most actual data that can serve as a basis for quantifying ‘continuation of current forest management’. It can be used as a cornerstone for the base period as required for the Forest Reference Level for EU Member States.
After reunification in 1990, Germany's forest cluster developed anew and employment in the woodbased industries differentiated very quickly. With more than 900,000 employees, it is now considered one of the most important industrial sectors in the country. This paper analysed general trends in the development of employment of wood-based industries in the German forest cluster between 1999 and 2006. Shift-share analysis was considered to be the most appropriate way to determine regional differences in the subsection DD/20 'Manufacture of wood and wood products' of the code ''Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Revision 1.1'' (NACE): the sawmill industry, the wood-based panel industry, the wood construction industry, the wood-based packaging industry, and the miscellaneous wood products industry. This method decomposed the change of employment into three different components that are due to that change: national trends, (industrial) sectoral trends, and regional conditions. Employment in the selected woodbased industries showed a significantly larger decrease than overall trends in both the producing industries and the whole economy of Germany: a continual loss of employees could be observed over the time period, affecting almost all of the selected wood-based industries. However, federal states in western and eastern Germany experienced divergent trends between 1999 and 2006, as different absolute and relative regional share components indicated in the shift-share analysis. This method allows of identifying regional disparities and characterising regions with positive (mainly eastern federal states) and negative (mainly western federal states) rates of employment growth. The research suggests that positive employment trends in eastern Germany's wood-based industries can mainly be attributed to regional factors such as comparatively higher subsidies for new investments, lower labour costs, lower land values or infrastructural peculiarities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.