Suchergebnisse

Monitoring employment in the European wood-based bioeconomy requires reliable, consistent, and comparable statistics across subsectors and over time. Statistics concerning employment in wood-based industries - the main component of the forest-based bioeconomy - must be processed carefully to cope with differences in definitions and estimation methods. In addition, specific methods must be applied to estimate wood-based employment in sectors including also non-wood activities. In this study, we first delineate the boundaries of the wood-based bioeconomy, and then create a harmonised time series on employment for the identified sectors. Finally, we estimate the share of wood-based employment along the value chain in all sectors using wood. According to the results, forestry and extended wood-based value chains employed 4.5 million people in the EU-28 in 2018. Employment in wood-based value chains decreased between 2008 and 2013 in the aftermaths of the financial crisis. Continuously decreasing employment - most apparent in the manufacture of solid wood products and pulp and paper - results from increasing productivity and a decreasing demand for graphic paper. Further, most of the wood-based employment in the EU takes place in downstream parts of value chains, although the weight of the primary sector is still high in some Eastern European countries.

We present future fire danger scenarios for the countries bordering the Mediterranean areas of Europe and north Africa building on a multi-model ensemble of state-of-the-art regional climate projections from the EU-funded project ENSEMBLES. Fire danger is estimated using the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System and a related set of indices. To overcome some of the limitations of ENSEMBLES data for their application on the FWI System-recently highlighted in a previous study by Herrera et al. (Clim Chang 118:827-840, 2013)-we used an optimal proxy variable combination. A robust assessment of future fire danger projections is undertaken by disentangling the climate change signal from the uncertainty derived from the multi-model ensemble, unveiling a positive signal of fire danger potential over large areas of the Mediterranean. The increase in the fire danger signal is accentuated towards the latest part of the transient period, thus pointing to an elevated fire potential in the region with time. The fire-climate links under present and future conditions are further discussed building upon observed climate data and burned area records along a representative climatic gradient within the study region. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. ; The research leading to these results has received funding from the EXTREMBLES project (CGL2010-21869) funded by the Spanish R&D programme and from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 243888 (FUME Project). The authors acknowledge the RCM data sets from the EU-FP6 project ENSEMBLES (http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk) and would also like to thank Erik van Meijgaard from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) for making available ENSEMBLES RACMO2 climate model output verifying at 12:00 UTC. ; Peer Reviewed

We present future fire danger scenarios for the countries bordering the Mediterranean areas of Europe and north Africa building on a multi-model ensemble of state-of-the-art regional climate projections from the EU-funded project ENSEMBLES. Fire danger is estimated using the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System and a related set of indices. To overcome some of the limitations of ENSEMBLES data for their application on the FWI System?recently highlighted in a previous study by Herrera et al. (Clim Chang 118:827?840, 2013)?we used an optimal proxy variable combination. A robust assessment of future fire danger projections is undertaken by disentangling the climate change signal from the uncertainty derived from the multi-model ensemble, unveiling a positive signal of fire danger potential over large areas of the Mediterranean. The increase in the fire danger signal is accentuated towards the latest part of the transient period, thus pointing to an elevated fire potential in the region with time. The fire-climate links under present and future conditions are further discussed building upon observed climate data and burned area records along a representative climatic gradient within the study region. ; The research leading to these results has received funding from the EXTREMBLES project (CGL2010-21869) funded by the Spanish R&D programme and from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 243888 (FUME Project). The authors acknowledge the RCM data sets from the EU-FP6 project ENSEMBLES (http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk) and would also like to thank Erik van Meijgaard from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) for making available ENSEMBLES RACMO2 climate model output verifying at 12:00 UTC. We are also grateful to Jesus Fernandez and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that greatly contributed to the improvement of the original manuscript.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259-262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO 2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

International audience ; A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259–262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

Climate has a strong influence on fire activity, varying across time and space. We analyzed the relationships between fire-weather conditions during the main fire season and antecedent water-balance conditions and fires in two Mediterranean-type regions with contrasted management histories: five southern countries of the European Union (EUMED)(all fires); the Pacific western coast of the USA (California and Oregon, PWUSA)(national forest fires). Total number of fires (≥1 ha), number of large fires (≥100 ha) and area burned were related to mean seasonal fire weather index (FWI), number of days over the 90th percentile of the FWI, and to the standardized precipitation-evapotranspiration index (SPEI) from the preceding 3 (spring) or 8 (autumn through spring) months. Calculations were made at three spatial aggregations in each area, and models related first-difference (year-to-year change) of fires and FWI/climate variables to minimize autocorrelation. An increase in mean seasonal FWI resulted in increases in the three fire variables across spatial scales in both regions. SPEI contributed little to explain fires, with few exceptions. Negative water-balance (dry) conditions from autumn through spring (SPEI8) were generally more important than positive conditions (moist) in spring (SPEI3), both of which contributed positively to fires. The R of the models generally improved with increasing area of aggregation. For total number of fires and area burned, the R of the models tended to decrease with increasing mean seasonal FWI. Thus, fires were more susceptible to change with climate variability in areas with less amenable conditions for fires (lower FWI) than in areas with higher mean FWI values. The relationships were similar in both regions, albeit weaker in PWUSA, probably due to the wider latitudinal gradient covered in PWUSA than in EUMED. The large variance explained by some of the models indicates that large-scale seasonal forecast could help anticipating fire activity in the investigated areas. ; This research was funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 243888 (FUME Project). Publication in Open Access was funded by the EC FP7 Post-Grant Access Pilot. ; Peer Reviewed

Climate has a strong influence on fire activity, varying across time and space. We analyzed the relationships between fire?weather conditions during the main fire season and antecedent water-balance conditions and fires in two Mediterranean-type regions with contrasted management histories: five southern countries of the European Union (EUMED)(all fires); the Pacific western coast of the USA (California and Oregon, PWUSA)(national forest fires). Total number of fires (?1 ha), number of large fires (?100 ha) and area burned were related to mean seasonal fire weather index (FWI), number of days over the 90th percentile of the FWI, and to the standardized precipitation-evapotranspiration index (SPEI) from the preceding 3 (spring) or 8 (autumn through spring) months. Calculations were made at three spatial aggregations in each area, and models related first-difference (year-to-year change) of fires and FWI/climate variables to minimize autocorrelation. An increase in mean seasonal FWI resulted in increases in the three fire variables across spatial scales in both regions. SPEI contributed little to explain fires, with few exceptions. Negative water-balance (dry) conditions from autumn through spring (SPEI8) were generally more important than positive conditions (moist) in spring (SPEI3), both of which contributed positively to fires. The R2 of the models generally improved with increasing area of aggregation. For total number of fires and area burned, the R2 of the models tended to decrease with increasing mean seasonal FWI. Thus, fires were more susceptible to change with climate variability in areas with less amenable conditions for fires (lower FWI) than in areas with higher mean FWI values. The relationships were similar in both regions, albeit weaker in PWUSA, probably due to the wider latitudinal gradient covered in PWUSA than in EUMED. The large variance explained by some of the models indicates that large-scale seasonal forecast could help anticipating fire activity in the investigated areas. ; We thank Sixto Herrera for his assistance in climate data downloading and pre-processing. We acknowledge the helpful feedback from Julie Yee, Steve Cumming, and two anonymous reviewers to previous versions of the manuscript. This research was funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 243888 (FUME Project). Publication in Open Access was funded by the EC FP7 Post-Grant Access Pilot. Any use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government.

The EU Bioeconomy Strategy, updated in 2018, in its Action Plan pledges an EU-wide, internationally coherent monitoring system to track economic, environmental and social progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy. This paper presents the approach taken by the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) to develop such a system. To accomplish this, we capitalise on (1) the experiences of existing indicator frameworks; (2) stakeholder knowledge and expectations; and (3) national experiences and expertise. This approach is taken to ensure coherence with other bioeconomy-related European monitoring frameworks, the usefulness for decision-making and consistency with national and international initiatives to monitor the bioeconomy. We develop a conceptual framework, based on the definition of a sustainable bioeconomy as stated in the Strategy, for a holistic analysis of the trends in the bioeconomy sectors, following the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society and environment). From this conceptual framework, we derive an implementation framework that aims to highlight the synergies and trade-offs across the five objectives of the Bioeconomy Strategy in a coherent way. The EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System will be publicly available on the web platform of the EC Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy.