European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 126, Issue 2, pp 209–223 | Cite as

Application of the stock change and the production approach to Harvested Wood Products in the EU-15 countries: a comparative analysis

  • Gundolf Kohlmaier
  • Luita Kohlmaier
  • Elke Fries
  • Wolfgang Jaeschke
Original Paper


With the analytical tool: Frankfurt Harvested Wood Products (HWP) Model, carbon stocks and carbon stock changes of HWP, either in USE or in LANDFILLS, have been evaluated from the readily available statistical data base of the FAO, FAOSTAT, on the wood commodities: “Sawnwood and Wood-based Panels” and the paper commodities: “Paper and Paperboard”. Essential differences have been found between the individual 15 EU countries in the comparison of the Stock Change Approach and the Production Approach, as well as in the comparison of the stock changes of HWP with the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) budgets. The stock changes for the HWP in USE within the EU-15 Community have been calculated to be 10.83 Mt C/a (39.71 Mt CO2/a) based on the Stock Change Approach and 9.81 Mt C/a (35.97 Mt CO2/a) for the Production Approach, respectively. These numbers can be compared to the total GHG Inventory of the EU-15 of 4,095 Mt CO2 equivalents, including all six Kyoto gases, which shows that the carbon sequestration of HWP in USE is of the order of 1% relative to GHG Inventory. The GHG balance for the carbon stock changes of HWP in LANDFILLS is of similar magnitude as for the HWP in USE, and therefore a sink when methane outgasing is disregarded. However, when methane outgasing is considered, which is formed as a 1:1 mixture with CO2 under the prevailing anaerobic conditions the GHG balance results in minus 10.0 Mt C equivalent/a and minus 10.6 Mt C equivalent/a for the Stock Change Approach and the Production Approach under the parameters chosen in this study.


Stocks Stock changes of Harvested Wood Products in USE and in LANDFILLS Analytical model Methane outgasing of landfills EU-15 comparison of stock change approach and production approach 



The selected data base (FAOSTAT) and EXCEL spreadsheets on HWP of Dr Kim Pingoud, Finland have been greatly appreciated. Advice from Dr Bernhard Schlamadinger; Austria with respect to the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC is thankfully acknowledged. The paper is dedicated to all scientists and policy makers who in the end succeeded that the Kyoto Protocol could go into force on February 16, 2005.


  1. Austropapier (2004) Vereinigung der Österreichischen Papierindustrie, Das Jahr 2004 in Zahlen.
  2. Burschel P, Kürsten E, Larson BC (1993) Die Rolle von Wald und Forstwirtschaft im Kohlenstoffhaushalt—Eine Betrachtung für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ludwig Maximilian-Universität München, Forstwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Munich, 135 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Eggers T (2002) The impacts of manufacturing and utilization of wood products on the European carbon budget, Internal report no. 9, European Forestry Institute (EFI)Google Scholar
  4. EU Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1999) On the landfill of waste. Official J Eur Commun L182/1-L182/19, 16.7.1999Google Scholar
  5. FAO State of the World’s Forests (2003) FAO Forestry Department, RomeGoogle Scholar
  6. FAOSTAT Data Base Collection (2004) (i) Roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels and (ii) Paper&Paper Board. Internet
  7. Ford-Robertson J, Duignan A (2001) Summary of the harvested wood products workshop; Rotorua, New Zealand, February 2001.,2
  8. Glaser WG, Northey RA, Schultz (eds) (2000) Lignin—historical, biological and materials perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 576 pp; see also Northey RA
  9. Heath LS, Kauppi PE, Burschel P, Gregor HD, Guderian R, Kohlmaier GH, Lorenz S, Overdieck D, Scholz F, Thomasius H, Weber M (1993) Contribution of temperate forests to the world’s carbon budget. Water Air Soil Pollut 70(1–4):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC: Third Assessment Report TAR. Climate Change (2001) In: Houghton JT et al (eds) The scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Karjalainen T, Kellomäki S, Pussinen A (1994) Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmospheric carbon. Silva Fenn 28(2):67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohlmaier GH, Badeck FW, Otto RD, Häger Ch, Dönges S, Kindermann J, Würth G, Lang T, Jäkel U, Nadler A, Klaudius A, Ramge P, Habermehl S, Lüdeke MKB (1997) The Frankfurt biosphere model. A global process oriented model for the seasonal and long-term CO2 exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. II: Global results for potential vegetation in an assumed equilibrium state. Clim Res 8:61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kohlmaier GH, Weber M, Houghton RA (eds) (1998) Carbon dioxide mitigation in Forestry and Wood Industry. In: Proceedings of the Freising workshop, 1996. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 375 pp. ISBN 3-540-63433-9Google Scholar
  14. Kohlmaier GH, Schefold B, Rohner M, Spitzer J (1999, update 2004) Wood energy in the industrialized world: present status and potential contribution to CO2 mitigation. Technology, economy and policy issues. In: International workshop Graz, Austria 19–20 November 1999, update May 2004 (CD available from G. Kohlmaier)Google Scholar
  15. Pingoud K (2002) Software tool: calculation procedures of stock and stock changes of harvested wood products HWP in BioEnergy-Task 38, Joanneum, Graz.
  16. Pingoud K, Savolainen L, Seppälä H (1996) Greenhouse impact of the Finnish forest sector including forest products and waste management. Ambio 25(5):318–326Google Scholar
  17. Pingoud K, Perälä A, Pussinen A (1999) Inventorying and modeling of carbon dynamics in wood products. In: Robertson KA, Schlamadinger B (eds) Bioenergy for mitigation of CO2 emissions: the power, transportation and industrial sectors. Proceedings of the IEA Bioenergy Task 25 workshop, Gatlinburg. IEA, Graz pp 125–140Google Scholar
  18. Pingoud K, Schlamadinger B, Grönkvist S, Brown S, Cowie A, Marland G (2004) Approaches for inclusion of harvested wood products in future GHG inventories under the UNFCCC, and their consistency with the overall UNFCCC inventory reporting framework. IEA BioEnergy, Task 38, Joanneum, Graz. Greenhouse gas balances of biomass and bioenergy systems 13Google Scholar
  19. Scharai-Rad M, Welling J (1999) Biomass for greenhouse gas emission reduction: sawn timber and wood based products as building materials. Working Report Nr. 1999/01 Institut für Holzphysik und mechanische Technologie des Holzes. Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Skog KE, Pingoud K, Smith JE (2004) A method countries can use to estimate changes in carbon stored in harvested wood products and the uncertainty of such estimates. Environ Manage 33:(Suppl. 1)Google Scholar
  21. Spieker H, Mielikäinen K, Köhl M, Skowsgaard J-P (eds) (1996) Growth trends in European forests—studies from 12 countries, European Forest Research Institute. Report No. 5. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 372 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Umweltbundesamt UBA (2003) German GHG Inventory 1990–2001, National Report. Scholar
  23. Umweltbundesamt UBA (2004) German GHG Inventory 1990–2002, National Report. GHG Inventory 1990–2002, published in 2004Google Scholar
  24. UN (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). United Nations, New York/Geneva, 33 pGoogle Scholar
  25. UN (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the Unites Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York/Geneva, 23 pGoogle Scholar
  26. UN-ECE, United Nations Economic Commission of Europe, Main Report, Geneva (2000) Timber and Forest Study Papers, No. 17. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, (Commonwealth of Independent States), North America, Australia and New Zealand—Industrialized temperate and boreal Industrialized States; originally called: Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment, 2000, TBFRA-2000.
  27. Winjum JK, Brown S, Schlamadinger B (1998) Forest harvests and wood products: sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. For Sci 44(2):272–284Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gundolf Kohlmaier
    • 1
  • Luita Kohlmaier
    • 1
  • Elke Fries
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Jaeschke
    • 1
  1. 1.Working Group Atmospheric Environmental Research, Institute for Atmosphere and EnvironmentGoethe UniversityFrankfurt/MainGermany

Personalised recommendations