International Union of Forest Research Organizations

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
981112260
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Vienna, Vienna, AU
Phone
0187701510
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,587,753
Expenses
$3,758,054
Assets
$1,779,913
Liabilities
$1,178,527

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alexander Buck (IUFRO Executive Director)
  • Michael Kleine (IUFRO Deputy Executive Director)
  • Daniela Kleinschmit (IUFRO President & Board Member)
  • Woodam Chung (Iufro Vice President & Board Member)
  • Elena Paoletti (Iufro Vice President & Board Member)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alexander Buck (IUFRO Executive Director): $157,823 total reported compensation
  • Michael Kleine (IUFRO Deputy Executive Director): $142,909 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

IUFRO's mission is to promote global cooperation in forest-related research and to enhance the understanding of the ecological, economic and social aspects of forests and trees; as well as to disseminate scientific knowledge to stakeholders and decision-makers and to contribute to forest policy and on-the-ground forest management.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other program services: WFSE, ISR, TU4F/Mondi, WoodPop & various other projects (short term). WFSE: The comprehensive publication "Restoring forests for sustainable development - Policies, practices, impacts and ways forward" was completed and published as open access by Oxford University Press. ISR: This project implements the redesign of IUFRO's Knowledge and Information Systems. The aim is to restructure IUFRO's website to support dynamic data structures. TU4F/IUFRO-Mondi Partnership Project: The partnership, TEAMING UP 4 FORESTS is a science-business platform addressing key challenges for the sustainable provision of wood-based products to meet societal demands and thereby supporting the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The European Wood Policy Platform (WoodPoP) was launched in 2022 by Austria and Finland to foster collaboration among public administration, industry, and research. It aims to strengthen the role of wood as a renewable resource and help shape enabling conditions for sustainable wood-based value chains across Europe. Following a successful call for proposals under the Austrian Forest Fund, the Secretariat of WoodPoP has been hosted by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) since December 2023, leveraging IUFRO's global scientific network. In 2024, the platform endorsed the policy paper "A Wood-Based Circular Bioeconomy for a Sustainable Europe: Green Construction and Innovative Wood Solutions" during its Third High-Level Meeting held in Brussels in November. The paper was developed through a collaborative process, including a dedicated Policy Lab drafting session in July.In addition, the platform co-organized an expert conference on the role of wood in the built environment in November, and hosted a workshop on education and vocational training in December, further advancing dialogue and capacity-building in the wood-based sector.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 63% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 63.1%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.3% of revenue deployed · 63.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 30 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 44 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.