COST Action E43Harmonisation of National Inventories in Europe:

Techniques for Common Reporting

Monitoring Forest Resources for Sustainable Management

Meeting of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists

Forestry Commission231 Corstorphine Road, EH 12 7AT

Edinburgh, Scotland21-22 May, 2007

www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/

27 European countries, USA and New ZealandJune 2004 – June 2008

Cost Action E43Objectives

• To harmonise the definitions and concepts to produce comparable information

• To support countries, particularly with new inventories

• To promote the use of scientifically sound and validated methods

3 WGs of COST E43

1. Harmonised definitions and measuring practices of NFIs

2. Harmonized estimation procedures for carbon pools and carbon pool changes

3. Harmonized indicators and estimation procedures for assessing components of biodiversity with NFI data

WG 1

WG 2WG 3

The way towards harmonizationThe way towards harmonization

NFI descriptions

+Questionnaire

s

Comprehensive information on the current situation of

NFIs

References Definitions

Analysis of harmonization

options

International definitions

Recommendations for harmonizing results at

the European level

Building Bridges

Comparable estimates

Results calculation

Concepts and variables with reference definitions

• WG1– Forest land, Other Wooded land– Tree components, Volume of growing stock, Standing volume

• WG2 – Forest (from WG1), Cropland, Grassland, Wetlands, Settlements,

Other land– Five carbon pools (Above and Below ground biomass, Dead wood, Litter, Soil carbon)– Afforestation, Reforestation, Deforestation– Forest management

• WG3– Five core variables (Forest type, Deadwood, Ground vegetation, Naturalness, Stand structure)

Results of WG1, Forest definition

Coverage classes used

% of forest area assessed

18 4 3 1 2

0%

20%

40 %

60%

80%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% n/acoverage classes

forest area 3 number of countries

Results of WG1

Forest definition

Crown Coverage Classes Used

WG1, Forest Area and Volume of Growing

Stock versus DBH Threshold

Minimum DBH in COST E43 countries

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

0,0 2,1 4,5 5,0 6,4 7,0 7,5 8,0 10,0 12,0 n/a

DBH threshold (cm)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

forest area

volume

1*2*2*

1*

3*2*

1*1* 2* 1*

The key issues of WG2

• UNFCCC reporting

• Kyoto reporting

• Definitions and decisions already by 2006

• Annual figures to report

• Land-use change estimates

• State and change in 5 carbon pools

Utilization of NFIs

WG2 results, Land use issues• Approaches to estimate land-use

changeSampling 32%Sampling and land cover/use maps

32%

Sampling and other 5%All three sources 16%Land cover/use maps 16%

WG2 results, KP - baseline

• Data for the baseline year (mostly 1990)

From NFI measurements 53%From NFI measurement and other sources 16%From other sources 32%

WG2 results, KP – ARD activities

Land cover/use maps 16%Sampling 37%Land cover/use and sampling 21%Land cover/use maps and other methods 11%Sampling and other methods 5%Other 11%

• The basis for ARD estimation

Use of NFI data for 5 carbon pools (%)

Yes

Yes,

potentially No

Aboveground biomass 91 9 0

Belowground biomass 56 13 31

Deadwood 74 26 0

Litter 50 28 22

Soil 53 29 18

1

?

Development steps of WG3 activities

Referencesfor core variables

Specific biodiversity data are collected on dead wood?

3

3

5

5

6

6

7

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Invertebrates

M osses

B ird activities

Nests

Fungi

Hollow trees

Holes

Decay stages

Number of countr i es

11 countries are currently assess deadwood in time series

Result of WG3

» harmonised report on deadwood (changes in time and in decay stages) will be possible

0102030405060708090

100

Sweden

Slovak

ia

Czech

Repub

lik

Finlan

d

Spain

Belgiu

m

United

Kingdom

Switzerla

nd

Norway

USA

Cyprus

Austria

Denmar

k

Germ

any

Estonia

Lithuan

ia

Portugal

Hungary

Slowenia

Italy

Greece

France

%

Figure: Percentage of the 41 parameters for assessing biodiversity currently monitored by European NFIs

Questionnaire’s result of WG3

WG3: Attributes ranked by the number of NFIs assessing them

20 20 19 18 17 17 16 15 1411 10

6

2 3 3 4 5 69 10

14

1

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

DB

H

hei

gh

t

nu

mb

er o

f tr

ees

/db

h /

hec

tare

dea

d t

rees

(sn

ags)

/ h

a

soci

al p

osi

tio

n

nu

mb

er o

f la

yers

stag

e o

f d

evel

op

me

nt

tree

co

ord

inat

es

spec

ies

abu

nd

ance

/la

yer

edg

e ef

fect

s /

ha

dis

tan

ce t

o n

eare

st

nei

gh

bo

ur

tre

e

gap

s/h

a

Country Layer one two three multi, much, mixed Austria x x x

Belgium x x

Estonia x x (x) (x)

Finland x x X

France (x) (x)

Germany x x x

Hungary x x x (x)

Latvia x x x

Lithuania (x) (x) (x) (x)

Norway x x x

Romania

Slovakia x x x

Spain x x

Sweden x x x

Switzerland x x x x

UK x x x x

in total 13 12 9 10

15 European countries currently describe the vertical stand structure by assessing the number of layers.

» data harmonisation is possible

Result of WG3

Impact, science

• Current status of NFIs, differences and similarities in concepts and definitions

• Methods to analyse and create definitions quantitatively

• The role of NFIs in UNFCCC LULUCF and Kyoto reporting

• Quantifying biodiversity assessment and the possibilities of NFIs in biodiversity monitoring

• Methods to convert NFI estimates from one definition to another (building bridges)

Impact, technology• European forest monitoring system

– can be built on NFIs – full advantage of local knowledge– full advantage of a long time methodological work

and time series– FAO, UNECE/FAO, MCPFE, JRC, EEA, DG ENV

actively participating• Global impact, similar processes are being

built elsewhere with the support of FAO, e.g., Asia process, Montreal process

Impact, technology, cont

• Building up European forest information supply on the national inventories

– maximized benefits from inventories

500 000 visited plots– maximized advantage of local knowledge and

requirements together with international requirements

Cost Action E43Office holders

• Prof. Erkki TOMPPO (Finland), the Chairman of the Action• Dr. Klemens SCHADAUER (Austria), Vice-ChairmanThree Working Groups• Dr. Claude VIDAL (France), leader, WG1• Dr. Adrian LANZ (Switzerland), deputy leader, WG1• Prof. Göran Ståhl (Sweden), leader, WG2• Dr. Emil CIENCIALA (Czech Republic), deputy leader, WG2• Prof. Gherardo CHIRICI (Italy), leader, WG3• Dr. Susanne WINTER (Germany), deputy leader, WG3

E43, coordination

• Up to now– 7 Management committee meetings– 7 Joint working group meetings (8th in June in Helsinki)– 8 Steering committee meetings– 2nd Questionnaires, all WGs– 7 STSM and 10 Task Force meetings for analysing the questionnaires, defining references and building bridges

Future activities

• 3 MC and JWG meetings • Several STSMs, TF meetings• Building bridges a challenge

– field data with different definitions, work, => resources, some promising progress in 2007

• Publications– Country Report, status in each participating country– Scientific papers (so far 3 + 1 + 2)– Harmonised results

Future activities, cont

• Inventory teams involved, high commitment of all, particularly core people and groups

• Ambitious tasks with a lot of work

• A new action to continue the work

Thank you !