Comparative evaluation of the forestry sector of the bioeconomy in Greece (2008–2023)

Schlüsselbegriffe: Kreislaufwirtschaft, Forstpolitik, Wirtschaftsindikatoren, nach­haltige Entwicklung, regionale Disparitäten, Beschäftigungstrends

Available at https://doi.org/10.53203/fs.2601.4

Download as PDF

See below the issue 1/2026 as E-Paper or have a look at our E-Paper archive dating back to 1955.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The forest-based bioeconomy has become a strategic priority in the European Union (EU); however, substantial disparities persist among Member States. This study evaluates Greece’s performance in the forestry sector of the bioeconomy over the period 2008–2023, using harmonized data from the European Commission’s Bioeconomy Country Dashboard. Three core economic indicators—turnover, value added at factor cost, and employment—are analyzed, with turnover and value added additionally expressed on a per employee basis to enhance comparability. The results indicate a persistent and widening performance gap between Greece and the EU-27 average. Turnover per employee in the forestry sector declined by almost 45% between 2008 and 2023, while value added per employee decreased by more than 50%, contrasting sharply with strong upward trends observed at the EU level. Although total employment in the forestry sector of bioeconomy in Greece increased over the period, the sector’s contribution to total bioeconomy employment remained limited, reaching only 1.43% in 2023, compared with approximately 2.6–3.1% in the EU-27. These outcomes reflect long-standing structural and institutional constraints, including fragmented forest ownership, low timber mobilization, outdated technologies, and limited innovation capacity, which have been exacerbated by external shocks such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparative evidence from Northern European countries highlights the importance of coherent national strategies, technological upgrading, and coordinated policy frameworks. The study concludes that the development of a National Bioeconomy Strategy, supported by improved monitoring mechanisms and targeted investments, is essential for enhancing the contribution of the forest sector to sustainable regional development in Greece and for strengthening the competitiveness of the forest-based bioeconomy.

Zusammenfassung

Die forstbasierte Bioökonomie ist zu einer strategischen Priorität in der Europäischen Union (EU) geworden, jedoch bestehen weiterhin erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Diese Studie bewertet die Leistung Griechenlands im Forstsektor der Bioökonomie im Zeitraum 2008–2023 anhand harmonisierter Daten aus dem Bioeconomy Country Dashboard der Europäischen Kommission. Es werden drei zentrale Wirtschaftsindikatoren analysiert: Umsatz, Wertschöpfung zu Faktorkosten und Beschäftigung, wobei Umsatz und Wertschöpfung zusätzlich pro Mitarbeiter angegeben werden, um die Vergleichbarkeit zu verbessern. Die Ergebnisse zeigen eine anhaltende und sich vergrößernde Leistungskluft zwischen Griechenland und dem Durchschnitt der EU-27. Der Umsatz pro Beschäftigten im Forstsektor ging zwischen 2008 und 2023 um fast 45 % zurück, während die Wertschöpfung pro Beschäftigten um mehr als 50 % sank, was in starkem Kontrast zu den starken Aufwärtstrends auf EU-Ebene steht. Obwohl die Gesamtbeschäftigung im Forstsektor der Bioökonomie in Griechenland im Laufe des Zeitraums gestiegen ist, blieb der Beitrag des Sektors zur Gesamtbeschäftigung in der Bioökonomie begrenzt und erreichte 2023 nur 1,43 %, verglichen mit etwa 2,6–3,1 % in der EU-27. Diese Ergebnisse spiegeln langjährige strukturelle und institutionelle Zwänge wider, darunter fragmentierte Waldbesitzverhältnisse, geringe Holznutzung, veraltete Technologien und begrenzte Innovationskapazitäten, die durch externe Schocks wie die Finanzkrise von 2008 und die COVID-19-Pandemie noch verschärft wurden. Vergleichende Erkenntnisse aus nordeuropäischen Ländern unterstreichen die Bedeutung kohärenter nationaler Strategien, technologischer Modernisierung und koordinierter politischer Rahmenbedingungen. Die Studie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Entwicklung einer nationalen Bioökonomie-Strategie, unterstützt durch verbesserte Überwachungsmechanismen und gezielte Investitionen, von entscheidender Bedeutung ist, um den Beitrag des Forstsektors zur nachhaltigen regionalen Entwicklung in Griechenland zu erhöhen und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der forstbasierten Bioökonomie zu stärken.

1 Introduction

The roots of the bioeconomy lie in the biological sciences and biotechnology and are often traced back to early work on the economic implications of genomics. A widely cited early contribution is the article by Enriquez (1998) in Science, which demonstrated how advances in genomics could reshape various sectors and industrial production processes. While the term “bioeconomy” does not appear in that article, it is frequently considered an early articulation of the modern bioeconomy concept, emphasizing the transformative potential of biological sciences and biotechnology for industrial production and economic development. Subsequent literature has recognized these foundational ideas and has highlighted the shift from a biotechnology-centered vision to a broader, sustainability-oriented paradigm (Bugge et al., 2016; Birner, 2017; Wei et al., 2022). A recent trend highlights the need to connect the concept of bioeconomy more effectively with the concepts of sustainable development and the green economy (Birner, 2017). In recent years, an evolution to the concept of bioeconomy has been observed; it has become a broader, sustainability-oriented paradigm that encompasses the three sustainability pillars (economy, society and environment), leaving behind the initial narrow idea based almost solely on biotechnology (Brunori, 2013; Bugge et al., 2016).

Bioeconomy is also linked to the concept of circular economy, since sustainable bioeconomy is considered the renewable segment of the latter. Circular economy is a relatively new concept that has emerged on the global policy agenda (Ghisellini et al., 2016) and its main aim is to incorporate the spirit of sustainable development into the economic pillar (Corona et al., 2019). While the bioeconomy focuses on the use of biological resources, the circular economy emphasizes the efficient use of resources. The green economy functions as an “umbrella” concept, encompassing elements of both the circular economy and the bioeconomy (D’Amato et al., 2017). Recent studies have highlighted the intersection of circular economy and bioeconomy, and the concept of “circular bioeconomy” has been developed (Carus & Dammer, 2018; Philp & Winickoff, 2018; Venkata Mohan et al., 2019; Falcone et al., 2020). Stegmann et al. (2020) concluded that the concept of circular bioeconomy is not inherently sustainable, although it could contribute to improving the sustainability of the bioeconomy.

The bioeconomy, also known as the “biobased economy”, encompasses the production of biobased resources and their conversion into food, feed, bioenergy, and biobased materials. It is based on sustainable development through the application of biological and systemic knowledge and innovation to develop a sustainable economy (Lewandowski, 2018). In the European Union (EU), during the development of the bioeconomy concept, the term “knowledge-based” was added, resulting in the “knowledge-based bioeconomy”, which aligned with the EU‘s innovation policy at the beginning of the millennium. During a meeting in Lisbon in 2000, the European Council committed itself to establishing “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” (European Union, 2000).

The European Union‘s initial Bioeconomy Strategy (European Commission, 2012) defined the bioeconomy as “the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-added products.” According to the updated European Union Bioeconomy Strategy (European Commission, 2018), “The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems based on biological resources (animals, plants, microorganisms, and biomass derivatives, including organic waste), their functions, and principles.” According to the European Parliament (2013), a successful bioeconomy for Europe depends on the availability of food stocks, with sustainable management and sustainable sourcing. The development of the concept of bioeconomy in the European Union has been accompanied by increased funding, particularly in the EU‘s framework programs for research and technological development, and especially in the 8th framework program entitled “Horizon 2020” (European Commission, 2013). A circular bioeconomy strategy in the European Union will be a key tool for achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Climate Agreement, highlighting the role of forests as the most important land-based biological infrastructure on the European continent, supporting biodiversity and mitigating climate change (Hetemäki et al., 2017).  Moreover, the EU Bioeconomy Strategy could be a central policy for the EU Green Deal in the post-COVID-19 period, contributing to the sustainable development within the EU (Liobikienė & Miceikienė, 2023).

The definition of the forest bioeconomy remains an open and evolving issue at both the global and European Union levels. According to Rinn et al. (2022), the globally accepted concept of the bioeconomy includes the forestry sector, although the concept of forest bioeconomy has not been defined in a uniform manner. While all Member States of the EU agree that forestry constitutes an important component of the bioeconomy, the forest bioeconomy lacks a commonly accepted definition at the EU level, and its role and degree of integration differ significantly across Member States (Ludvig et al., 2019). At the international level, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has proposed a definition for the wood-based bioeconomy as “a bioeconomy made of all biological resources derived from wood (including wood that does not come from forests and recycling of wood products)” (Bouillon, 2020: p. 6).

Within this conceptual diversity, the European Union recognizes the forest bioeconomy as a critical factor in achieving EU priorities, including the objectives of the European Green Deal and the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Jonsson et al., 2021). Sustainable development is a central pillar of the bioeconomy in the European Union (European Commission, 2018), and its role has been recognized in the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework as a “selling point” (Ramcilovic-Suominen & Pülzl, 2018). The forest bioeconomy contributes to sustainability by promoting the efficient and responsible use of natural resources, restoring and enhancing forest ecosystems. It also contributes to environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, and the enhancement of ecosystem services (European Commission, 2018). Furthermore, it supports the circular use of resources, as the forestry sector is the second largest source of biomass in the EU, most of which comes from roundwood (Gurría et al., 2022). The transition towards a forest-based bioeconomy requires robust information on forest structure and wood resource availability, highlighting the importance of harmonized datasets that enable comparable assessments across European countries (Pucher et al., 2022).

Additionally, the forest bioeconomy plays a decisive role in mitigating climate change. Forests act as carbon sinks, contributing to carbon sequestration, while harvested wood products (HWPs) also store carbon. This mitigation potential is further enhanced by reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions drop significantly when wood products replace carbon-intensive materials such as concrete or steel (Jonsson et al., 2021). Furthermore, forestry and the forest industry can play a fundamental role in providing bio-based substitutes for non-renewable resources (Ollikainen, 2014; Roos & Stendahl, 2015). Taken together, these characteristics show that the forest bioeconomy is a multifaceted and dynamic field that contributes to economic growth and the creation of new employment opportunities (Lewandowski, 2018).

The economic importance of the forest bioeconomy is also reflected in employment figures. In 2018, forestry and extended wood value chains employed 4.5 million people in the European Union (Robert et al., 2020a). The forest-based sector is one of the pillars of the European bioeconomy, and research on the forest bioeconomy is an expanding field, characterized by diverse actors (Lovrić et al., 2021). The updated European Bioeconomy Strategy identifies the forest sector as one of the principal supplier sectors that support achieving objectives such as job creation and employment through the green economy (Ludvig et al., 2019). However, the role of forests and the forest sector is mostly neglected in the majority of EU bioeconomy strategies, except in Finland (Hetemäki et al., 2017).

Significant disparities exist across EU Member States in the bioeconomy, particularly in the maturity of innovation solutions. Northern European countries, including the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands, lead in implementing such solutions. At the same time, Southern Europe generally lags behind, with notable exceptions such as bioplastics in France, lignin in Spain and wood-based materials in Slovenia (European Environment Agency, 2025). These differences reflect broader structural, institutional, and innovation-related gaps across Europe and provide important context for assessing the position of individual countries.

Greece is one of the countries where these disparities are particularly evident, especially in the forest-based segment of the bioeconomy. This is also reflected in the absence of a National Bioeconomy Strategy in Greece, although the country has adopted a National Circular Economy Strategy. In the European Union, eleven countries have dedicated bioeconomy strategies in 2025: Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (Eliasson et al., 2025). As indicated by Priefer et al. (2017), other European countries that have developed bioeconomy strategies include Norway and the Western Nordic countries (Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands), further widening the gap and highlighting disparities between Northern and Southern Europe in forestry and the forest-based bioeconomy.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate Greece‘s performance in the bioeconomy, with a particular focus on the forestry sector, during the period 2008–2023, using harmonized data from the European Commission, and to interpret the observed economic outcomes in light of the country’s forest resource characteristics and structural conditions.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the study area, the methodology used, the data source, and its processing, and explains the necessary terminology. Section 3 presents the results of the study, while Section 4 provides a discussion of the findings and compares them with other studies. Finally, section 5 summarizes the study‘s conclusions, based on the results and discussion.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Description of study area: Forest land, ownership structure and forest resources in Greece

Greece is characterized by a predominantly Mediterranean forest landscape with strong spatial heterogeneity and pronounced ecological constraints. According to official data from the Ministry of Environment and Energy of Greece and the Greek National Forest Strategy (2018–2038), forests cover approximately 30% of the national territory (around 3.8–3.9 million hectares). When other wooded land, such as shrublands and grazed forest formations, is included, forest-related land accounts for nearly 49% of the country’s surface (Ministry of Environment and Energy - Greece, 2018). The most recent Eurostat data (December 2024) confirm that forests account for 29.63% of the total land area of Greece (European Commission-Eurostat, 2024). Recent pan-European forest structure products also combine National Forest Inventory information with remote sensing and gap-filling approaches, providing spatially explicit indicators (e.g., volume and biomass) that have been shown to be consistent with published national statistics and are useful for contextualizing country-level analyses (Pucher et al., 2022).

Forest ownership in Greece is largely public, with approximately three-quarters of forest land under state ownership, while municipal, church owned and private forests represent much smaller shares (Spanos et al., 2021). This ownership structure, combined with fragmented management responsibilities, has long influenced forest governance and resource mobilization.

Greek forests are dominated by coniferous species (approximately 58% of high forests), mainly pine species (Pinus halepensis, Pinus brutia, Pinus nigra) and firs (Abies sp.), while broadleaved species account for about 42%, dominated by oak (Quercus sp.), beech (Fagus sp.), and chestnut (Castanea sp.) (Spanos et al., 2021). Forests in Greece are primarily located in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas and often fulfil protective and environmental functions rather than intensive wood production. A distinctive feature of the Greek landscape is that a substantial share of forested areas is situated on steep mountainous terrain and slopes (Zagas et al., 2001), which makes harvesting operations technically demanding and costly (Tsioras & Liamas, 2015). In line with this, the average growing stock of Greek forests has been reported to be about 62 m³/ha, based on estimates from the First National Forest Inventory (Ministry of Agriculture, 1992, as cited in Spanos et al., 2021), while approximately 70% of harvested wood is used as firewood, reflecting the generally low intensity of industrial roundwood production (Spanos et al., 2021). As a result, timber productivity remains relatively low compared to northern and central European countries.

Regarding Greece’s forested areas and other wooded land, the total growing stock of living trees is estimated at approximately 193 million cubic meters. Based on the reported forest area (3.8–3.9 million ha), this corresponds to an approximate mean growing stock of about 49–51 m³/ha, providing an indicative order-of-magnitude estimate at the national scale. Of this volume, around 83 million cubic meters correspond to coniferous species, while the remaining share consists of broadleaved trees, excluding shrub volume (FAO, 2013). However, only a limited share is economically utilized (Tsiaras et al., 2020; Koulelis et al., 2023). According to the available Eurostat roundwood removals data, harvesting intensity in Greece remains low, corresponding to approximately 0.30–0.31 m³/ha/year in 2022 and 0.29–0.30 m³/ha/year in 2023 (European Commission-Eurostat, 2025). These characteristics provide essential context for interpreting the economic performance of the forestry sector within the Greek bioeconomy.

 

2.2 Data sources, indicators and analytical framework

For the purposes of this paper, data from the official website of the European Union were used, specifically from the European Commission’s online data platform “The bioeconomy in different countries” (European Commission, 2025). The bioeconomy sectors in the European Union are as follows (Source: European Commission, 2025): 

1) Agriculture, 

2) Bio-based chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and rubber (excluding biofuels), 

3) Bio-based electricity, 

4) Bio-based textiles, 

5) Fishing and Aquaculture, 

6) Food, beverage and tobacco, 

7) Forestry, 

8) Liquid biofuels, 

9) Paper, 

10) Wood products and furniture.

The data cover the period 2008–2023, and the selected indicators for this study are turnover, value added at factor costs, and employment for all bioeconomy sectors and for the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy. These three indicators were selected because they are the core economic metrics used by the European Commission to monitor the performance and growth dynamics of the bioeconomy. Although the bioeconomy comprises a wide range of sectors, this study focuses on the forestry sector, as it represents the core land-based component of the bioeconomy and is directly linked to forest resources, forest management, and wood supply.

In this paper, the term “forestry sector of the bioeconomy” refers specifically to economic activities classified under NACE A02 in Eurostat data, representing the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy. The term “forest-based bioeconomy” is used in a broader conceptual sense, encompassing forestry and forest-based value chains, while the term “forest sector” is employed at the policy level to describe the wider system of forestry-related activities, governance structures, and strategic frameworks.

Turnover is used as an indicator of market size in the EU bioeconomy strategy and represents the total value of sales generated by a given sector, including intermediate sales along the bioeconomy value chain, which may lead to limited double counting. Value added at factor cost corresponds to gross operating income after adjustment for operating subsidies and indirect taxes, excluding depreciation. Employment refers to the number of persons aged 15 years and over employed in the sector, including full-time and part-time workers, persons temporarily absent from work, and unpaid family workers, in line with Eurostat definitions.

Turnover and value added data are originally reported by the European Commission based on Eurostat national accounts. In order to improve comparability across countries with different economic and structural conditions, the analysis additionally normalizes turnover and value added by employment, presenting these indicators on a per employee basis. This approach allows for a more meaningful comparison of economic performance within the forestry sector of the bioeconomy across countries and over time.

The following section presents the evolution of the relevant indicators for the period 2008–2023 in Greece relating to the bioeconomy in the forestry sector. For each indicator, average values were used, and the change between the initial value in the base year (2008) and the final value in the most recent year for which data were available (2023) was calculated. The period of analysis (2008–2023) allows capturing long-term structural trends, as well as more recent post-pandemic developments and policy dynamics affecting the forestry sector of the bioeconomy in Greece.

3 Results

Based on the data sources and indicators described in the Materials and Methods section, the Results section presents the empirical results on the evolution of the forestry sector within the Greek bioeconomy over the period 2008–2023. Table 1 presents the evolution of the bioeconomy in the forestry sector in Greece over this period. The data are derived from the European Commission’s Bioeconomy Country Dashboard (European Commission, 2025) and include the following indicators: 

(i) turnover, 

(ii) value added at factor cost, and 

(iii) employment. 

In line with the methodological approach described above, turnover and value added are additionally presented on a per employee basis in the tables, in order to enhance comparability over time. All monetary values are expressed in euros; decimal points are used as decimal separators, and commas are used as thousand separators. 

The average values for the period 2008–2023 were as follows: turnover in total €74.75 million, turnover per employee €10,305.90, added value in total €59.06 million, added value per employee €8,143.00, and average employment of 7,253 employees.

Compared to the base year (2008), turnover per employee in the forestry sector of the bioeconomy in Greece decreased by almost 45% (–44.84%) in 2023, while total turnover over the same period showed a marginal increase of 1.30%.

The added value per employee decreased by more than 50% (-50.99%), while the added value in total for the same period decreased by 10%. Finally, employment increased by almost 84% (83.64%), with the number of employees increasing by approximately 4,500 between 2008 and 2023.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of turnover per employee (€ per employee) in the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy in Greece over the period 2008–2023, compared with the corresponding average for the European Union (EU-27). 

The turnover per employee in the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy in Greece lags significantly behind the EU-27 average over the period 2008–2023, with the gap widening further in recent post-COVID years, particularly after 2020. In 2008, the difference amounted to approximately €64,500 per employee, while by 2023 it had increased substantially to more than €123,000 per employee. The average turnover per employee for the period 2008–2023 in Greece was €10,306, while in the European Union was €94,206, approximately nine times higher. The change in turnover per employee between 2008 and 2023 shows a decrease of almost 45% (-44.84%) for Greece, as also reported in Table 1, whereas the corresponding figure for the European Union increased by almost 67% (66.9%).

Figure 2 shows the evolution of added value per employee (€ per employee) in the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy in Greece over the period 2008–2023, compared with the corresponding average for the European Union (EU-27).

The added value per employee in the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy in Greece remains consistently lower than the EU-27 average throughout the period 2008–2023, with the gap widening substantially over time. In 2008, the difference amounted to approximately €26,900 per employee, while by 2023 it had increased by almost €58,500 per employee.

Over the entire period examined, the average added value per employee in Greece was €8,143, compared to €46,100 in the European Union, indicating a more than fivefold difference in labor productivity between Greece and the EU average. While the EU-27 shows a clear upward trend in added value per employee, particularly after 2020, Greece exhibits a pronounced downward trajectory after 2013, with only minor fluctuations thereafter.

Between 2008 and 2023, added value per employee in Greece decreased by more than 50% (-50.99%), whereas in the European Union it increased by approximately 69%, highlighting a growing divergence in value creation capacity within the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy.

Figure 3 shows the evolution of employment in the sector “Forestry” of the bioeconomy as a share of total employment in all bioeconomy sectors in Greece and the European Union (EU-27) over the period 2008–2023.

Employment in the sector “Forestry” represents a relatively small but gradually increasing share of total bioeconomy employment in Greece over the period 2008–2023. Following a decline during the years 2009–2013, which coincides with the domestic economic crisis and the onset of the Memorandum period, the employment share exhibits a steady upward trend from 2014 onwards, reaching 1.43% in 2023. The temporary decline observed in 2020 reflects the broader economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment across the Greek economy. In contrast, employment in the sector “Forestry” accounts for a consistently higher and remarkably stable share of total bioeconomy employment in the European Union. Throughout the period examined, the EU-27 maintains values ranging between approximately 2.6% and 3.1%, highlighting a persistent structural gap between Greece and the EU average in terms of the employment contribution of forestry within the bioeconomy.

4 Discussion

4.1 Interpretation of Greece’s performance

Greece has made some progress in recent years in the field of the bioeconomy, but still lags significantly behind the European average. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on its performance, placing Greece among the lowest-performing EU Member States. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that major external shocks—such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic—tend to disproportionately affect weaker economies, limiting their capacity for rapid recovery (Oravský et al., 2020). The observed post-2014 recovery in Greece, although modest in magnitude, is in line with earlier findings for the broader forestry-related bioeconomy, which indicate a gradual stabilization of employment following the deep contraction of the crisis years (Maris & Flouros, 2022). However, the substantially lower employment share of the core forestry sector suggests that structural constraints continue to limit its contribution to bioeconomy employment in Greece, despite signs of partial recovery.

Supporting this interpretation, Greece is classified among the weaker EU economies (Oravský et al., 2020) and ranks last among EU Member States in indicators closely related to the forest bioeconomy, such as wood supply, the use of forest products, and employment in the forest-based sector (Tsiaras & Andreopoulou, 2020). In this context, harmonized forest structure information at the European scale can provide an independent and spatially explicit benchmark for key variables such as growing stock and biomass, supporting the interpretation of cross-country differences (Pucher et al., 2022).

 

4.2 Explaining Greece’s lagging position

In Greece, broader institutional and structural factors significantly constrain the development of a robust forest bioeconomy. Our findings are consistent with previous research highlighting that the forest-based bioeconomy in Southern Europe faces complex obstacles, the most prominent being the fragmentation of forest ownership, which hinders timber mobilization and contributes to very low utilization rates of forest resources (Martinez de Arano et al., 2018). In addition, Southern European countries face structural constraints related to low investment in innovation and outdated processing technologies (Martinez de Arano et al., 2018). These limitations, also observed in Greece, further reduce the capacity of the forest sector to generate higher added value. A stronger focus on non-wood forest products (NWFPs) could have a positive influence on employment, creation of added values and the contribution of forestry to the national bioeconomy as shown by Posavec et al. (2021) in their assessment of the economic footprint of NWFPs in Croatia. 

 

4.3 Comparison with EU and successful cases

Northern European countries provide several best practices in the field of forest-based bioeconomy, offering valuable insights for less developed countries, including those in Southern Europe. Nordic countries demonstrate long-term strategies, stakeholder engagement, and coherent policy instruments that promote innovative solutions across the entire forest value chain (Hetemäki et al., 2017).

Finland stands out as a leading country in forest bioeconomy, with Finnish forest-based companies often seeing themselves as forerunners of a sustainable circular bioeconomy, emphasizing the “reasonable use of wood” (Näyhä, 2019). Moreover, the Leading Forest Firms of the country adopted noteworthy digital solutions such as online wood trade, drone helicopters for forest inventory, and virtual reality. These solutions have promoted the versatile use of renewable wood biomass, improved resource efficiency, expanded the potential of renewable raw materials and product value, and ultimately made forest management easier (Watanabe et al., 2018).

Beyond Finland, countries such as Germany and Spain have achieved strong results in the forest-based bioeconomy, particularly in areas linked to sustainability principles, such as the sustainability of the biomass resource base, production processes, and consumption patterns (Barañano et al., 2022). These examples underline that high performance in the forest bioeconomy is closely associated with national strategies that incorporate good governance, value chain coordination, and investments in innovation.

However, despite the strong performance of these countries, implementation challenges remain even among leaders in the forest bioeconomy. Empirical research on how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adopt sustainability-related circular business models is only just emerging in Finland (D’Amato et al., 2020).

 

4.4 Structural and institutional disparities in Southern Europe

Structural and institutional weaknesses are well-documented barriers to the development of a competitive forest-based bioeconomy in Southern and Southeastern Europe. A study in Croatia, Serbia and North Macedonia concluded that the absence of advanced technologies in the wood-processing sector is one of the main reasons why wood production in these countries struggles to achieve higher added value (Lovrić et al., 2021). The same authors also underline a lack of human capacities necessary to support the growth and further integration of bioeconomy sectors (Lovrić et al., 2021). These barriers are also evident in Greece, where the use of obsolete equipment in the wood industry and the shortage of skilled workers in forest operations are consistently identified as key obstacles in the forest sector.

A study in Italy developed a set of simple, practical, and easy-to-use indicators to assess the performance of the forest-wood chain following the principles of circular bioeconomy within the framework of the implementation of the Italian National Sustainable Development Strategy in the forest-based sector (Paletto et al., 2021). Greece could similarly benefit from developing a dedicated set of indicators to measure and assess the forest-based circular bioeconomy, following the Italian example, which would help monitor progress on bioeconomy strategies and evaluate key dimensions such as productivity, performance, and efficiency. In Croatia, another study evaluated the contribution of non-wood forest products (mushrooms, aromatic and medical plants, berries and other fruits) to the bioeconomy. The authors concluded that the average prices of non-wood forest products at both the local and international market levels are higher than expected (Posavec et al., 2021).

These examples illustrate how targeted actions can enhance the performance of the forest sector, but specific policy strategies are generally absent in many Southern European countries. As highlighted by Winkel (2017), recognizing regional differences in Europe is crucial for the development of the forest-based bioeconomy; therefore, a multi-level policy approach is needed, in which the EU defines the concept and basic rules for forest-based bioeconomy markets, while regional and national levels adapt these to local conditions. 

 

4.5 Implications for Greece

A coherent, evidence-based policy framework is essential to address the structural gaps identified in Greece’s forest-based bioeconomy. Robert et al. (2020b) proposed a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union, using an integrative and collaborative approach that incorporates the three sustainability pillars (economy, society, and the environment). Such a framework may help identify and track disparities between regions or countries in the development of the bioeconomy and provide sustainable solutions to mitigate them. Applying a similar approach would be particularly valuable for Greece, where monitoring mechanisms and performance indicators remain underdeveloped. From a monitoring perspective, integrating harmonized forest structure datasets into national and EU-level frameworks could improve evidence-based policy design and support strategic planning for the forest-based bioeconomy (Pucher et al., 2022).

The impact of global economic events on the economy is even more evident in Greece‘s forestry sector, which is characterized by an inadequate political and institutional framework, limited investment in innovation, and slow adaptation to new bioeconomy standards. These weaknesses hinder the sector’s ability to respond effectively to crises and limit its capacity to generate higher added value. A study that evaluated the National Forest Strategy (NFS) of Greece (Ministry of Environment and Energy - Greece, 2018) also highlights long-standing structural weaknesses in the country’s forest sector, including the very low economic contribution of forestry to the country’s Gross Domestic Product-GDP (only 0.05%), chronic trade deficit, and significant reductions in funding caused by the economic crisis (Tsiaras et al., 2020). At the same time, the NFS emphasizes the model of Mediterranean forestry and sustainable forest management as key tools to promote regional development, indicating that Greece has meaningful prospects for improvement that could support a transition toward a stronger forest-based bioeconomy and enhance the contribution of forestry to the national economy.

A recent assessment of the Greek forest sector further supports these findings, revealing a persistent decline in domestic wood production across all major product categories and a substantial increase in imports, which intensified after the economic crisis (Koulelis et al., 2023). The authors also conclude that Greece requires a new legal framework to ensure the long-term sustainability and productivity of forest resources, emphasizing the implementation of sustainable forest management. These insights underline the urgent need for coordinated policy interventions to strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of the forest-based bioeconomy in Greece. Greece should therefore make use of the existing institutional framework established by the National Strategy for the Circular Economy and the National Forest Strategy, aiming to draft a National Strategy for the Bioeconomy in the coming years, drawing on best practices from European Union member states that are performing well in the bioeconomy sector, such as Finland, and Germany, which have a National Strategy for the Bioeconomy. The existence of a specific institutional framework would enable better policy coordination, financing, and investment attraction in the forestry sector. The establishment of a National Bioeconomy Strategy would help Greece integrate sustainability, innovation, and socio-economic objectives in line with EU policy frameworks.

5 Conclusions

The findings of this study show that Greece underperforms in key economic dimensions of the forestry sector of the bioeconomy, particularly in turnover and value added, while performing relatively better in employment. However, this remains substantially below the EU average. Despite some positive developments, persistent disparities with the EU average remain evident throughout the period 2008–2023. These outcomes reflect long-standing structural constraints, including low levels of innovation, technological obsolescence, limited mobilization of forest resources and broader institutional weaknesses that hinder the competitiveness of the sector.

Addressing these challenges requires coherent policy actions. The development of a National Bioeconomy Strategy would provide Greece with an integrated framework that aligns sustainability, innovation and socio-economic objectives with EU policy priorities. The establishment of monitoring mechanisms is also important, drawing on existing frameworks proposed in recent literature, to ensure systematic evaluation of progress. Strengthening cross-sectoral integration, investing in human capital and technological modernization, and learning from successful Nordic examples could significantly enhance the country‘s capacity to transition toward a sustainable, competitive forest-based bioeconomy.

References

Barañano, L., Unamunzaga, O., Garbisu, N., Briers, S., Orfanidou, T., Schmid, B., Martínez de Arano, I., Araujo, A., Garbisu, C. (2022). Assessment of the development of forest-based bioeconomy in European regions. Sustainability 14(8): 4747. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084747  

Birner, R. (2017). Bioeconomy concepts. In: Lewandowski, I. (ed.), Bioeconomy: Shaping the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. Springer International Publishing, Cham: 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68152-8_3 

Bouillon, P. (2020). From bioeconomy definitions to bioeconomy strategies targeted on promoting forest-based bioeconomy. FAO Forestry Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Brunori, G. (2013). Biomass, biovalue and sustainability: Some thoughts on the definition of the bioeconomy. Sociologia Ruralis 53(1): 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12020 

Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., Klitkou, A. (2016). What is the bioeconomy? A review of the literature. Sustainability 8(7): 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070691 

Carus, M., Dammer, L. (2018). The circular bioeconomy—concepts, opportunities, and limitations. Industrial Biotechnology 14(2): 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2018.29121.m 

Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Carreón, J. R., Worrell, E. (2019). Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 151: 104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498 

D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., Lahtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B. D., Toppinen, A. (2017). Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 716-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053 

D’Amato, D., Veijonaho, S., Toppinen, A. (2020). Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. Forest Policy and Economics 110: 101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.004

Eliasson, A., Borzacchiello, M. T., Camia, A., Girardi, I., Spartico, G. (2025). National bioeconomy strategies in Europe – State of play September 2025. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra. JRC143845. 

Enriquez, J. (1998). Genomics and the world’s economy. Science 281(5379): 925–926. DOI:10.1126/science.281.5379.925

European Commission (EC) (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. Communication COM(2012) 60 final, Brussels.

European Commission (EC) (2013). Horizon 2020 – The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. European Commission, Brussels. 

European Commission-Eurostat (2024). Forests, forestry and logging. Eurostat Statistics Explained, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Forests,_forestry_and_logging. (accessed on 21 December 2025).

European Commission-Eurostat (2025). Roundwood removals by type of wood and assortment (for_remov) [data table]. Eurostat Database. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/for_remov/default/table?lang=en. (accessed on 15 January 2026).

European Commission (EC) (2025). Bioeconomy Country Dashboard – The bioeconomy in different countries. Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy. Available at: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/visualisation/bioeconomy-different-countries_en. (accessed on 15 June 2025). 

European Environment Agency (EEA) (2025). Opportunities for innovation in the bioeconomy. EEA Briefing 11/2025. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/bioeconomy-unlocking-opportunities-for-innovation-in-the-bioeconomy

European Parliament (2013). A bioeconomy in Europe. European Parliament Resolution of 2 July 2013 on Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe (2012/2295(INI)).

European Union (EU) (2000). Lisbon European Council, Presidency Conclusions. Council of the European Union, Lisbon.

Falcone, P. M., Tani, A., Tartiu, V. E., Imbriani, C. (2020). Towards a sustainable forest-based bioeconomy in Italy: Findings from a SWOT analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 110: 101910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.014

FAO (2013). The State of Mediterranean Forests 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 68–74.

Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114: 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007  

 Gurría, P., González Hermoso, H., Cazzaniga, N., Jasinevicius, G., Mubareka, S., De Laurentiis, V., Caldeira, C., Sala, S., Ronchetti, G., Guillén, J., Ronzon, T., M’barek, R. (2022). EU Biomass Flows update 2022. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/082220  

Hetemäki, L., Hanewinkel, M., Muys, B., Ollikainen, M., Palahí, M., Trasobares, A., Potočnik, J. (2017). Leading the way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. European Forest Institute, Joensuu.

Jonsson, R., Rinaldi, F., Pilli, R., Fiorese, G., Hurmekoski, E., Cazzaniga, N., Robert, N., Camia, A. (2021). Boosting the EU forest-based bioeconomy: Market, climate and employment impacts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163: 120478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120478

Koulelis, P. P., Tsiaras, S., Andreopoulou, Z. S. (2023). Greece’s forest sector from the perspective of timber production: Evolution or decline? Forests 14(12): 2331. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14122331 

Lewandowski, I. (2018). Bioeconomy: Shaping the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. Springer Nature, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68152-8  

Liobikienė, G., Miceikienė, A. (2023). Contribution of the European Bioeconomy Strategy to the Green Deal Policy: Challenges and opportunities in implementing these policies. Sustainability 15(9): 7139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097139 

Lovrić, N., Ostoić, S. K., Vuletić, D., Stevanov, M., Đorđević, I., Stojanovski, V., Curman, M. (2021). The future of the forest-based bioeconomy in selected southeast European countries. Futures 128: 102725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102725 

Ludvig, A., Zivojinovic, I., Hujala, T. (2019). Social innovation as a prospect for the forest bioeconomy: Selected examples from Europe. Forests 10: 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100878 

Maris, G., Flouros, F. (2022). Economic crisis, COVID-19 pandemic, and the Greek model of capitalism. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 19(1): 469–484. DOI:10.1007/s40844-021-00228-y 

Martinez de Arano, I., Muys, B., Topi, C., Pettenella, D., Feliciano, D., Rigolot, E., Lefèvre, F., Prokofieva, I., Labidi, J., Carnus, J.-M., Secco, L., Fragiacomo, M., Follesa, M., Masiero, M., Llano-Ponte, R. (2018). A forest-based circular bioeconomy for southern Europe: Visions, opportunities and challenges. Reflections on the bioeconomy. Synthesis Report. European Forest Institute.

Ministry of Agriculture (1992). First National Inventory of Greece. General Secretariat of Forests and Natural Environment. Independent Edition.

Ministry of Environment and Energy – Greece (2018). Forestry Strategic Development Plan 2018–2038 (National Forestry Strategy). Government Gazette B 5351. (In Greek).

Näyhä, A. (2019). Transition in the Finnish forest-based sector: Company perspectives on the bioeconomy, circular economy and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 1294–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.260 

Ollikainen, M. (2014). Forestry in bioeconomy – Smart green growth for humankind. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29(4): 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926392 

Oravský, R., Tóth, P., Bánociová, A. (2020). The ability of selected European countries to face the impending economic crisis caused by COVID-19 in the context of the global economic crisis of 2008. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13(8): 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13080179 

Paletto, A., Becagli, C., Bianchetto, E., Sacchelli, S., De Meo, I. (2021). Measuring and assessing forest-based circular bioeconomy to implement the National Sustainable Development Strategy in Italy. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 138(4): 251–278.

Philp, J., Winickoff, D. E. (2018). Realising the circular bioeconomy. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers. DOI:10.1787/31bb2345-en 

Posavec, S., Brenko, A., Beljan, K. (2021). The value of non-wood forest products for the Croatian bioeconomy. Austrian Journal of Forest Science 138(4).

Priefer, C., Jörissen, J., Frör, O. (2017). Pathways to shape the bioeconomy. Resources 6(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6010010 

Pucher, C., Neumann, M., Hasenauer, H. (2022). An Improved Forest Structure Data Set for Europe. Remote Sensing 14:395. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14020395  

Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Pülzl, H. (2018). Sustainable development – A ‘selling point’ of the emerging EU bioeconomy policy framework? Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 4170–4180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.157 

Rinn, R., Palátová, P., Kalábová, M., Jarský, V. (2022). Forest bioeconomy from the perspectives of different EU countries and its potential for measuring sustainability. Forests 14(1): 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010033 

Robert, N., Giuntoli, J., Araujo, R., Avraamides, M., Balzi, E., Barredo, J. I., Baruth, B., Becker, W., Borzacchiello, M. T., Bulgheroni, C., Camia, A., Fiore, G., Follador, M., Gurria, P., La Notte, A., Lusser, M., Marelli, L., M’barek, R., Parisi, C., Philippidis, G., Mubareka, S. (2020b). Development of a bioeconomy monitoring framework for the European Union: An integrative and collaborative approach. New Biotechnology 59: 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.06.001 

Robert, N., Jonsson, R., Chudy, R., Camia, A. (2020a). The EU bioeconomy: Supporting an employment shift downstream in the wood-based value chains. Sustainability 12(3): 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030758 

Roos, A., Stendahl, M. (2015). The emerging bio-economy and the forest sector. In: Panwar, R. et al. (eds.), Forests, business and sustainability. Routledge: 179–201. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771397  

Spanos, K. A., Skouteri, A., Gaitanis, D., Petrakis, P. V., Meliadis, I., Michopoulos, P., Solomou, A., Koulelis, P., Avramidou, E. V. (2021). Forests of Greece, their multiple functions and uses, sustainable management and biodiversity conservation in the face of climate change. Open Journal of Ecology 11: 374–406. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2021.114026

Stegmann, P., Londo, M., Junginger, M. (2020). The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6: 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100029 

Tsiaras, S., Andreopoulou, Z. (2020). Forest policy evaluation in European countries using the PROMETHEE method. In: Mladenović, N., Sifaleras, A., Kuzmanović, M. (eds.), Advances in Operational Research in the Balkans. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21990-1_6 

Tsiaras, S., Koulelis, P., Tsiroukis, A., Spanos, I. (2020). The contribution of forests in regional development: The role of National Forest Strategy in Greece. MIBES Transactions International Journal. Management of Innovative Business & Education Systems. MTOL, 14(1): 110-122. 

Tsioras, P. A., Liamas, D. K. (2015). Residual tree damage along skidding trails in beech stands in Greece. Journal of Forestry Research 26: 523–531.

Venkata Mohan, S., Dahiya, S., Amulya, K., Katakojwala, R., Vanitha, T. K. (2019). Can circular bioeconomy be fueled by waste biorefineries – A closer look. Bioresource Technology Reports 7: 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100277 

Watanabe, C., Naveed, N., Neittaanmäki, P. (2018). Digital solutions transform the forest-based bioeconomy into a digital platform industry – A suggestion for a disruptive business model in the digital economy. Technology in Society 54: 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.05.002

Wei, X., Luo, J., Pu, A., Liu, Q., Zhang, L., Wu, S., Long, Y., Leng, Y., Dong, Z., Wan, X. (2022). From Biotechnology to Bioeconomy: A Review of Development Dynamics and Pathways. Sustainability 14(16): 10413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610413 

Winkel, G. (ed.) (2017). Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy – Assessment and the way forward. European Forest Institute, What Science Can Tell Us. Executive Summary.

Zagas, T., Tsitsoni, T., Hatzistathis, A. (2001). The mixed forests of Greece. Silva Gandavensis 66: 68–75.