Table 1.
Activity data analysis: for 28 EU countries
| Countries | A. FAOSTAT | B. Specific data sources in comparison with FAOSTAT | C. Possible explanations for differences between A and B | D. Corr. factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Available since | FRA CR | NIR | NFI | FMRL | |||
| Austria | 1961 | = | ↑ | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.15 |
| Belgium | 2000 | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | Accounting methods | - | |
| Bulgaria | 1961 | = | = | - | |||
| Croatia | 1992 | X | ↑ | Forest residues & bark | 1.10 | ||
| Cyprus | N. A. | X | - | ||||
| Czech Rep | 1993 | = | X | ↑ | Forest residues & bark | 1.10 | |
| Denmark | 1961 | = | X | Forest residues | - | ||
| Estonia | 1992 | X | =1 | =1 | Forest residues, bark & other | 1.10 | |
| Finland | 1961 | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | Forest residues, bark & other | 1.10 | |
| France | 1961 | = | ↓ | = | - | ||
| Germany | 1961 | ↑ | = | ↑ | Forest residues, bark & other | 1.442 | |
| Greece | 2007 | ↑ | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.15 | ||
| Hungary | 1961 | X | ↑ | ↑ | Bark fraction & forest residues | 1.203 | |
| Ireland | 1961 | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.10 | ||
| Italy | 1961 | = | X | ↑ | Forest residues, bark & other | 1.574 | |
| Latvia | 1992 | X | ↓ | ↓ | Bark fraction | 1.12 | |
| Lithuania | 1992 | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.12 | ||
| Luxemb. | 2000 | = | ↑ | - | |||
| Malta | N. A. | X | |||||
| Netherlands | 1961 | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.15-1.18 | ||
| Poland | 1961 | ↑ | = | Bark fraction | 1.20 | ||
| Portugal | 1961 | ↑ | = | Bark fraction | 1.25-1.18 | ||
| Romania | 1961 | = | ↑ | ↑ | General CF | 1.235 | |
| Slovakia | 1993 | X | = | = | Bark fraction | 1.10-1.12 | |
| Slovenia | 1993 | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.17-1.13 | ||
| Spain | 1961 | ↑ | ↑ | 1.10 | |||
| Sweden | 1961 | ↑ | ↑ | Bark fraction & forest residues | 1.14 | ||
| UK | 1961 | X | ↑ | Bark fraction | 1.14-1.12 | ||
The table reports: A. The first year from which FAOSTAT data are available; B. the additional data sources considered by this study, including: the 2010 Forest Resource Assessment country’s report (FRA CR), the 2013 National Inventory Reports (NIR), the last National Forest Inventory (NFI, when public available) and the Submission for Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL).
Symbols highlight if the amount of harvest reported by these specific data sources are, on average: equal (=), higher (↑), lower (↓) or not comparable (X, because of different time scales or other reasons) as compared to the FAOSTAT data. C. Possible differences between FAOSTAT and the other specific data sources. D. The correction factors applied to the original FAOSTAT data, mostly based on a correction for bark. The bark’s correction factor (based on data from the literature, when available at country level) was applied when, comparing FAOSTAT data with other sources (mainly the 2010 FRA Country Report), we argued that the volume reported by original FAOSTAT data were under-bark.
1the NIR 2013 reports the same values reported by FAOSTAT since 2003.
2average general correction factor (accounting for bark and other corrections) applied to original FAOSTAT data from 2000 to 2012; the CF varied year by year, assuming that the figures reported by the Submission for FMRL represent the correct estimates (Joachim Rock, pers. com).
3bark’s CF applied only to the industrial roundwood compartment.
4average general correction factor (accounting for bark, forest residues and other corrections, suggested by [28] and by [23].
5average general correction factor suggested by NIR 2013 [28].