Advertisement

Introduction

  • Susana Barreiro
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
  • Gerald Kändler
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
Chapter
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 29)

Abstract

Past severe deforestation and over-exploitation of forest resources experienced by many countries have led to the need for accurate information on the state, growth and harvesting of forests which, in turn, led to the implementation of forest inventory systems. In the eighteenth century, the sustainability concept emerged, and regular forest management featuring Standwise Forest Inventory (SFI) was established for the primary purpose of ensuring adequate wood production. Unlike SFIs, National Forest Inventories (NFI) use systematic sampling designs which enable use of unbiased estimators and uncertainty measures. Forest inventory has been the base for national and international reporting, and data from both SFIs and NFIs are used as input to projections systems. Therefore, the accuracy of inventory data influences the reliability of future wood availability projections. Recent developments in the bioenergy and bio-economy sectors are expected to lead to continuous increases in biomass consumption and will require additional and more comprehensive projection studies to support policy makers. This chapter presents an overview of the current state of European and North American forests and forest resources and a brief summary of the wood consumption trends for both continents. Some background information is also presented for the two different kinds of forest inventories whose data are used in future projections. Finally, the book structure is also presented.

References

  1. Cotta H (1804) Systematische Anleitung zur Taxation der Waldungen. Johann Daniel Sander, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. FOREST EUROPE (2015) State of Europe’s Forests 2015Google Scholar
  3. Goh CS, Junginger M, Cocchi M et al (2013) Wood pellet market and trade: a global perspective. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 7:24–42. doi: 10.1002/bbb.1366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haara A, Leskinen P (2009) The assessment of the uncertainty of updated stand-level inventory data. Silva Fennica 43(1):87–112. doi:10.142/4/Sf.219Google Scholar
  5. Hartig GL (1795) Anweisung zur Taxation der Forste, oder zur Bestimmung des Holzertrags der Wälder. Heyer, GießenGoogle Scholar
  6. Hundeshagen JC (1826) Die Forstabschätzung auf neuen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen. Heinrich Laupp, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Kangas A, Kangas J, Heikkinen E, Maltamo M (2004) Accuracy of partially visually assessed stand characteristics: a case study of Finnish forest inventory by compartments. Can J For Res 34:916–930. doi: 10.1139/x03-266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mantau U, Saal U, Prins K, et al. (2010) EUwood - Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. Final report. Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg, Centre of Wood Science. http://www.egger.com/downloads/bildarchiv/187000/1_187099_DV_Real-potential-changes-growth_EN.pdf. Accessed 5 July
  9. Mather A (2001) The transition from deforestation to reforestation in Europe. In: Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (eds) Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Muys B, Hetemäki L, Palahi M (2013) Sustainable wood mobilization for EU renewable energy targets. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 7:359–360. doi: 10.1002/bbb.1421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Natural Resources Canada (2016) Forest land ownership. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/ownership/17495. Accessed 15 July 2016
  12. NRC-CFS, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service (2015) The State of Canada's forests. Annual report 2015, p 76Google Scholar
  13. Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Miles PD, Pugh SA (2014) Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the forest service update of the 2010 RPA assessment, US Forest services, USDAGoogle Scholar
  14. Rudel KT (2001) Did a green revolution restore the forests of the American South? In: Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (eds) Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Šmelko Š, Šeben V, Bosela M, Merganič J, Jankovič J (2008) National forest inventory and monitoring of the Slovak Republik 2005–2006. National Forest Centre – Forest Research Institute, ZvolenGoogle Scholar
  16. Tomppo E, Gschwantner T, Lawrence M, McRoberts RE (2010) National Forest Inventories Pathways for Common Reporting Springer Heidelberg ISBN 978-90-481-3232-4Google Scholar
  17. UNECE/FAO (2011) The European Forest Sector Outlook Study II (EFSOS II). 2010–2030. UNECE/FAO, ECE/TIM/SP/28Google Scholar
  18. UNECE/FAO (2012) The North American Forest Sector Outlook Study 2006–2030. UNECE/FAO, Geneva, ECE/TIM/SP/29Google Scholar
  19. UNECE/FAO (2016) Forestry production and trade database. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/F/FO/E Accessed 15 July 2016
  20. UNFCCC (2010) Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Part One: Proceedings http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11.pdf Accessed 15 July 2016
  21. von Carlowitz H (1713) Sylvicultura Oeconomica oder haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturgemäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht, Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Braun (2 Bände)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susana Barreiro
    • 1
  • Mart-Jan Schelhaas
    • 2
  • Gerald Kändler
    • 3
  • Ronald E. McRoberts
    • 4
  1. 1.Forest Research Centre (CEF), School of AgricultureUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra)WageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Forest Research InstituteBaden-WürttembergGermany
  4. 4.Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest ServiceSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations