Figure 2 - available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
![Total roundwood production and net annual increment (NAI) in Germany (DE) and the Czech Republic (CZ) (2000-2018) [41-43].](publication/341681779/figure/fig2/AS:895891443560450@1590608573345/Total-roundwood-production-and-net-annual-increment-NAI-in-Germany-DE-and-the-Czech.png)
Total roundwood production and net annual increment (NAI) in Germany (DE) and the Czech Republic (CZ) (2000-2018) [41-43].
Source publication
Background and Objectives: Forest-based bioeconomies have been adopted as the national forest strategies in many European countries. However, in the Czech Republic, the bioeconomy has not been officially included in national policies. The main objective of the paper was to review the current forest policy in the Czech Republic in meeting the purpos...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... this article, values of forest biomass production from roundwood, industrial roundwood, and fuelwood were selected to present the changes after implementation of the studied forest strategy as the initial and existing information of the forest bioeconomy indicators in the Czech Republic. Figure 2 depicts the absolute amount of production of roundwood and net annual increment, while Figure 3 presents values of industrial roundwood and fuelwood (in thousand cubic metres or in thousand m 3 ) in Germany and the Czech Republic (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018). The net annual increment of the wood supply in the Czech Republic was below the roundwood production in 2018. ...
Context 2
... on Figures 2 and 3, the increase of the total roundwood production in Germany and the Czech Republic in the coming years can be predicted. By following the international forestry law and as part of the EU countries, the promotion of the wood and forest products to improve economic growth, along with sustainable forest management, is expected [53]. ...
Context 3
... was found to belong to the top three roundwood production countries (about 55 million m 3 ), after Sweden and Finland, while the Czech Republic was found to produce about 16 million m 3 [54]. The given production values in Figure 2 were still below the net annual increment in German forests available for wood supply (about 119 million m 3 ) [41,42]; thus, the increment of the roundwood production was still sustainable. Until 2017, the total year felling (final and sanitary) was not higher than the total net annual increment in the Czech Republic. ...
Similar publications
With the rise of the concept of a forest-based bioeconomy over the past decade, sustainability is simultaneously an underlying assumption and a key expectation. However, can we assume that a bioeconomy is sustainable simply because it emphasizes the use of forests as a renewable resource? And will a forest-based bioeconomy indeed lead to a more sus...
Citations
... At country level, other contributions such as Germany (Hagemann et al., 2016), Czech Republic (Purwestri et al., 2020a) and Portugal (Gonçalves et al., 2021) provided case studies as well as comparative studies (Purwestri et al., 2020b) aiming at discussing future scenarios of forest-based sector and national forest strategies. To the best of our knowledge, no studies consider forest bioeconomy with specific focus on wood and at regional/local scale in environmental and social fields. ...
Bioeconomy transition has been recognized as a key solution to tackle emerging environmental and socio-economic challenges. Several scientific publications focus on forest bioeconomy across multiple disciplines at territorial level. However, no studies provide a deep review investigation on forest bioeconomy with specific
focus on wood at regional scale in Environmental and Social fields. Stemming from this gap, we carry out a bibliometric and systematic analysis based on bibliographic coupling results for co-authorship and author.-keyword co-occurrences. The analysis covers 61 peer-reviewed articles in Social and Environmental fields in the time span 2009–2021. The co-authorship analysis identifies six clusters of current research related to: forest ecosystem services and supply costs of wood; nature awareness and wood products performance; social acceptance of wood mobilization and innovative products; Short Rotation Coppice acceptance and woody biomass opportunity in marginal lands; social Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) in wood construction; whereas, the keyword co-occurrence analysis highlights five clusters such as: bioeconomy and forest management, sustainable forest management and climate change mitigation, bioenergy and forest policy, sustainable value chain, and social acceptance and LCA. Main findings highlight a diversity of approaches to investigate forest bioeconomy transitions at regional scale in social and environmental fields. Gaps and future research developments are identified for each cluster and relevant policy implications are discussed. These mainly recall the need of establishing adequate participatory approaches between communities and policy actors, particularly for small private forest owners, and adequate economic incentives to support market entry to implement a sustainable bioeconomy.
... As an illustration of long-term tendencies, less than 0.4% and 0.3% of land conversions in Europe have been accounted for by afforestation and deforestation, respectively, in current ages (Forest Europe, 2020). Sweden's forest assets are predicted at 30.3 million hectares in 2020 (Purwestri et al., 2020), making it Europe's largest forest area. While the only other member state was Finland with a concentration of over 20 million hectares, Spain recorded the second-largest area at 28 million hectares (Palátová et al., 2022). ...
Despite their resilience, forest ecosystems become increasingly impacted by extreme climatic events, fires, and pathogen outbursts, which have considerable economic repercussions. How forest management solves these difficulties will affect human health, environmental variety, productivity, and forest ecosystem recuperation from exogenic distresses. Assuming forests provide ecosystem services essential to society and humanity along with wood, a better understanding of forest ecosystems seems essential to defining a development policy that meets ecological safeguard and energy and climate goals. According to the UN 2030 Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals, European forest management practices still don't provide a clear picture of ecological conditions, monetary estimate, and biodiversity. In light of the existing research, this article reviews and discusses recent European forestry industry trends and the environmental-economic nexus' complexity. Wood use has social consequences for regions adapting to ecological change, from rising temperatures to landscape modifications. This paper confirms that the technical-economic dimensions of forestry affect short-term economic dynamics, sector growth prospects, supply chain organization, company interconnections, and investment strategies. Forestry practices conserve species and habitats while boosting sustainable timber production. The European Commission's policy direction is to gradually encourage public and private entities to embark on worthy circular economy pathways, which will result in more jobs, material recycling, minimized carbon emissions, and community-added value. Forestry should contribute more holistically to sustainable development at diverse spatial dimensions. This includes focusing on environmental and economic aims in light of the recognition of relevant features that may guide forthcoming research and policy action while enhancing cooperation among member nations and local experts.
... In 2020, Sweden boasts the largest forest area in Europe, with assets estimated at 30.3 million hectares [94]. The second largest area was recorded in Spain (28.0 million hectares), while Finland (23.2 million hectares) was the only other Member State concentrating over 20 million hectares [95,96]. ...
Forest ecosystems are increasingly subject to disturbances, such as extreme (climate) events, fires and pathological outbreaks, which exert significant (and still poorly quantified) economic impacts, despite their intrinsic resilience. How forest management addresses these challenges will have profound effects on human health, environmental diversity, (ecological and economic) productivity and the ability of forest ecosystems to recovery from exogenous shocks. Assuming forests as ensuring ecosystem services that are vital to society and human well-being, in addition to providing wood material, a better knowledge of forest ecosystems appears a key requirement to delineate a developmental strategy that guarantees environmental protection objectives and achievement of climate and energy targets. In the context of Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, the information available on forest management practices in Europe still seems not completely suitable to provide a comprehensive overview of ecosystem conditions, their economic value, and their biodiversity. Based on a literature review, the present contribution focuses on recent dynamics of the forestry sector in Europe, delineating the inherent complexity in the environmental-economic nexus. Additionally, the extensive use of a key natural resource such as wood exerts social implications for local districts adapting to ecological change—from climate warming to landscape transformations. In line with earlier studies, our paper confirms the role of the technical-economic dimension of forestry in sustainable development paths of districts and regions, affecting together (i) short-term economic dynamics, (ii) the growth prospects of the sector, (iii) the organization of the supply chain, (iv) the interconnections between companies, and (v) investment strategies at large. One of the major issues is the low reliability of official statistics to provide a coherent picture of the actual status of forest resources. At the same time, forestry practices are pivotal in maintaining habitats and species while increasing the timber production that remains (too) sustainable. This is the policy direction constantly given by the European Commission to stimulate over time public bodies and private (in whose hands is about 60% of European forests) to start virtuous paths in the circular economy with considerable repercussions in terms of additional jobs, recycled materials, mt of CO2 equivalent avoided, and increase in community added value. In this context, forestry should assure a more ‘holistic’ contribution to sustainable development paths at various spatial scales. This means concentrating on both economic and environmental targets based on the identification of significant (ecological-economic) dimensions that may delineate future lines of investigation and policy intervention, while increasing between member countries and regional authorities.
... The next step was to select Latvia's policy planning documents for further analysis. This step was also necessary to understand whether the documents coincide with the international purpose of the bioeconomy [11,17]. A total of 10 policy strategies and development plans directly related to the bioeconomy were selected (Appendix A) using a hybrid search strategy-SLR in combination with snowballing [18]. ...
... The search began with the analysis of the Latvian Bioeconomy Strategy 2030 (further LBS) and expanded the set The next step was to select Latvia's policy planning documents for further analysis. This step was also necessary to understand whether the documents coincide with the international purpose of the bioeconomy [11,17]. A total of 10 policy strategies and development plans directly related to the bioeconomy were selected (Appendix A) using a hybrid search strategy-SLR in combination with snowballing [18]. ...
Climate change, rising food and feed demand, and biodiversity loss necessitate a more sustainable, innovative, and knowledge-based bioeconomy. This research analysed and compiled statistical data, reports, and other official information from Latvian forest sector stakeholders to understand its system components. After identifying main enablers and constraints, a methodology was established to find niche products with high added value through which the potential of the forest sector could be built. The system components of the Latvian forest sector and future growth scenarios for wood-based niche products showed similar outcomes for current constraints and drivers for the bioeconomy and forest sector. As a result, a number of action measures were proposed at government and policy planning level; measures to strengthen research and development, and activities to promote the production of higher value-added products and the development of a sustainable bioeconomy.
... The next step was to select Latvia's policy planning documents for further analysis. This step was also necessary to understand whether the documents coincide with the international purpose of the bioeconomy [11,17]. A total of 10 policy strategies and development plans directly related to the bioeconomy were selected (Appendix A) using a hybrid search strategy-SLR in combination with snowballing [18]. ...
... The search began with the analysis of the Latvian Bioeconomy Strategy 2030 (further LBS) and expanded the set The next step was to select Latvia's policy planning documents for further analysis. This step was also necessary to understand whether the documents coincide with the international purpose of the bioeconomy [11,17]. A total of 10 policy strategies and development plans directly related to the bioeconomy were selected (Appendix A) using a hybrid search strategy-SLR in combination with snowballing [18]. ...
The broad spectrum of bioresource use makes it challenging to interconnect strategic objectives and policy planning documents without compromising a coherent development vision. Bioeconomy development directions have been defined at the EU and Latvian levels. Nevertheless, to facilitate their implementation, the goals must be consistent with those specified in relevant national policy planning documents and vice versa. To determine whether internationally defined bioeconomy objectives are implemented in Latvian policy planning documents and what priority is given to them, a mixed methods approach was used—a systematic literature review combined with a keyphrase assignment approach. The results are summarized in an illustrative screening matrix and aggregated using the TOPSIS method to identify in which policy planning documents bioeconomy objectives are prioritized and to what extent. The results have shown a high prioritization of bioeconomy objectives in Latvian policy planning documents, especially in hierarchically higher documents.
... For example, ref. [39] analysed the present direction of bioeconomy in the Czech Republic. Regarding [40], opportunities for sustainable forest biomass and high-added-value products opened up in the forestry market in the Czech Republic. In addition, health conditions in traditional economic sectors such as forestry, agriculture, and food industries seem to be necessary for the development of a circular economy [39]. ...
Renewable sources play a crucial role in the decarbonisation process of the current linear economy, aimed at reaching the 2030 climate objectives and fulfilling the EU's long-term strategy of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. All economic subjects, including households, can contribute to the Green Deal goals. The main goal of this paper is to evaluate households' consumption of energy sources for heating purposes in the Czech Republic in the period 2003-2020 and depict possible drivers of switching to biomass. For this, various data were collected, such as data published by the Czech Statistical Office, ministries, and other national authorities, as well as data from Eurostat. Concerning methods, data analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were used. Different models focus on the substitution effect, rebound effect, and behaviour of different kinds of households. The results show a substitution effect connected with the consumption of coal, electricity, and biomass for heating purposes. Many households substituted coal for biomass in the observed period. On the other hand, the environmental impact of such substitution is not significant, as carbon emissions and emissions of other pollutants are stable. The substitution of fuels should be accompanied by technological change, e.g., improvement of combustion boilers. Moreover, households of pensioners are the key economic subjects with the highest impact on biomass consumption for heating purposes. Against this background we recommend policies to support households in replacing their boilers for more environmentally friendly ones.
... The concept of a bioeconomy is currently being widely discussed and assessed at the national and regional levels in individual countries and not only at the level of the European Union (EU) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. However, the definition of a bioeconomy is not entirely uniform (due to regional, political, and other differences) [8]. The concept of a bioeconomy represents an opportunity to solve current natural and social challenges, such as climate change, the lack of natural resources, dysfunctional patterns of consumer-supplier relations [9] and, in essence, the crisis caused by the high degree of globalisation. ...
The globally accepted concept of a bioeconomy includes the field of forestry; however, the concept of a forest bioeconomy (FBE) does not appear to be defined uniformly. The concepts of bioeconomy and sustainable development are interlinked. In many countries, the bioeconomy is often the subject of efforts to quantify it from the state level, and therefore, the question arises as to whether the data regarding the financial support of an FBE in individual countries can be considered mutually comparable, with the aim of including them, for example, among the criteria for measuring sustainability (e.g., indicators of sustainable development—SDI). This option has political implications for political representation, taking the form of a comparable indicator in the approaches of individual states. This article analytically compares FBEs and our understanding of them in selected countries: Czechia, Slovakia, Finland, Italy, and Germany. Czechia financially supports various areas of forestry through European funds (Rural Development Programme, RDP CZ). In this article, we assess this support from the point of view of the perceptions of the FBE in the studied states, with an emphasis on the view of Czechia. First, an FBE analysis of the selected official and supporting documents of the studied countries was performed. The total financial data from the supported projects from the RDP CZ were subsequently assigned to these areas. Thus, the idea of financial support for the FBE through the RDP CZ from the perspectives of the selected countries was born. The differences in the perception of the FBE according to the description derived from the analysis were also confirmed by the different financial quantifications (hypothetical) of these different views. The obtained results demonstrate an incomparable state of perception of the FBE among the selected countries. For these reasons, it is currently inappropriate to use the level of FBE financial support to measure sustainability.
... Other studies have compared national forest bioeconomy strategies with those of Western and Northern European countries such as Germany or Sweden, two countries with strong forest-based sectors, experienced in developing and implementing national bioeconomy strategies. For example, Purwestri et al. [22] compare Czechia's forest-bioeconomy strategy with that of Germany concluding that the main challenges faced by the forest-based sector in the country is to fulfil the demand for sustainable forest biomass and high value-added products. Similarly, Purwestri et al. [23] later compare the role of a bioeconomy in the Czech national forest strategy with that of Sweden, again pointing to several challenges related to fulfilling the provision of sustainable forest biomass and high added-value products while harmonizing forest policies and regulations. ...
As national governments continue developing bioeconomy strategies, the forest-based sector becomes increasingly important. Romania’s forest sector can be at the heart of a sustainable circular-bioeconomy transition. However, despite recently launching its national forest strategy, the country has yet to produce a comprehensive bioeconomy strategy where the forest sector is properly acknowledged and integrated. Here, we discuss the potential opportunities and challenges for developing a national circular–bioeconomy strategy that builds around the forest-based sector. Methodologically, we build on qualitative insights from two foresight workshops conducted with 16 international experts. Conceptually, we draw on recent forest-based circular-bioeconomy literature, which we synthesize and use to complement the insights provided by workshop participants. Three main key findings emerged from this analysis: (i) Several knowledge gaps related to biomass availability, carbon storage, biodiversity status, ecosystem services, or governance arrangements persist. (ii) A circular forest bioeconomy must focus on regional and rural development, including both traditional wood use, as well as new wood-based products. Finally, (iii) the transition to a forest-based bioeconomy requires substantial investments in areas such as forest infrastructure, education, and labor force. Forward-looking policies can address these challenges by fostering new ways of thinking, collaborating and researching the bioeconomy. We anticipate our article to be a starting point for more informed discussions around the role of forests and the forest-based sector in Romania’s future bioeconomy strategy. Furthermore, as work around the implementation of the national forest strategy has recently commenced, the ideas discussed here could help decision-makers better integrate and coordinate national and European forest policies with bioeconomy ambitions.
... In reviewing the publications that met the selection criteria, a number of issues arose. Firstly, the strategy in some publications was not identified by its explicit name, but by terms such as policy [46][47][48], programme [49], or pathway [50,51]. Another difficulty is that some strategies referred to priority fields that were already being implemented, while others referred to future implementation of the priority fields and what their impact would be [52][53][54][55][56]. ...
... These countries are investing in biomass value chains and bioenergy through biofuels [19,62,63]. Yellow cluster countries promote the development of the bioeconomy through agriculture [64,65] and forestry [48,66], believing that economic growth comes through proper resource management and gross added value from biomass production [67,68]. Competitiveness and employment are also priorities for these countries [69]. ...
... The transformation of this biomass into biomaterials is an innovation, and contributes to resource sufficiency and waste management [81]. Moreover, the economic use of biomass is a priority for the development of the bioeconomy [48]. ...
Bioeconomy is an emerging concept and no commonly accepted definition has been given so far. Bioeconomy strategies attempt to cover every aspect of this emerging concept from a different perspective, depending on the country, region, or organisation issuing them. For these reasons, each strategy has its own priority fields depending on the economic, geomorphological, social, ecological, and technological conditions of each country. In this review, an attempt is made to study the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies through a systematic review of the literature. PRISMA analysis was used to review the literature on the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies. The review examined the issue in the rich academic literature of two databases, Scopus and AgEcon. Using a repeatable search process to identify relevant studies in the literature, only 68 publications met the eligibility criteria that were included in the review. The results show that there are trends in the priority fields of bioeconomy strategies in the years 2013-2022. Moreover, the economic and technological development of the respective countries foreshadows their priorities. A successful transition to a bioeconomic model requires the participation of society as a whole, because a sustainable society as a whole requires sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. The study concludes that governance with global coordination and stakeholder training is needed for successful implementation of bioeconomy strategies.
... As regards agriculture, the greening process has begun. On the other hand, the forestry sector in the Czech Republic (Purwestri et al., 2020) should meet the demand for sustainable forest biomass and high value-added products. ...
