EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT

Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics

Unit E2: Environmental statistics and accounts; sustainable development

Doc. FO/TF Dec. 2014/Draft minutes

FORESTRY STATISTICS AND ACCOUNTINGTASK FORCE TO REVIEW IEEAF

3rd meeting, 11-12 December 2014

Draft minutes

Delegates are invited to bring copies of the documents provided on CIRCABC. All documents will be available in English only.*

Website: TF to review IEEAF (path: CIRCABC→ Browse categories→ Eurostat→ Forestry statistics and accounts→ Library→ IEEAF→ Task Force to review IEEAF)

Task Force to review IEEAF, 3rd meeting

Draft minutes, 11-12 December 2014

Aims

As a follow-up to the previous two meetings in November 2013 and January 2014, this meeting was intended to finalise the layout of the four tables covering the physical and monetary accounts for wooded land and timber assets, to reach an agreement on core and secondary tables of the entire set, to eliminate conceptual inconsistencies between tables and to discuss methods for physical and monetary estimates. The results of the national accounts Task Force on land were not discussed due to lack of time and information.

As the present minutes are detailed, the main conclusions are summarised at the end of the document.

The meeting was chaired by Arturo de la Fuente Nuño, the new deputy head of unit specifically in charge of environmental accounts.

11 December 2014

1) Welcome, introductions and adoption of the agenda

Arturo welcomed the participants and introduced himself and the new structure of the unit.

The draft agenda was adopted. It was agreed that the discussions would proceed in the order outlined in the documents, starting with the general principles before getting into the details of the tables.

2) Approval of the minutes of the 2nd meeting of 21 January 2014

The draft minutes were adopted with one question raised about the position of the DIMESA (Directors of environmental statistics and accounts) group with respect to the proposed future implementation of forest accounts under EU Regulation No. 691/2011. Marilise Wolf-Crowther explained that DIMESA’s opinion had been that the existing modules should be implemented first and that forest accounts should thus be foreseen for implementation in 2018 at the earliest.

3) The two-tier approach proposed by Eurostat

The document for this agenda item (Doc. 03) reviews the whole IEEAF system of accounts and tables as described in the 1999 European Framework for IEEAF, including the subsequent simplification of 2006, when the system was merged with the economic accounts for forestry (EAF), and the changes introduced in 2011 (adaptation to NACE Rev. 2 and new terminology).

The document covers the following 23 accounts and tables:

– Forest balance: area and value of wooded land (Tables 1a and 1b)– Forest balance: volume and value of standing timber (Tables 2a and 2b) – Defoliation (Table 2c)– Output related to wooded land by industry and type of output: value (Table 3a), a simplification of former Tables 3a (Output related to wooded land by industry) and 3b (Output by market and kind of producer) of the Framework – Economic accounts for forestry and logging: value (Table 3c)

1

– Supply-Use physical table: use (Table 4a)– Supply-Use physical table: supply (Table 4b) – Supply-Use monetary table: use (Table 5a)– Supply-Use monetary table: supply (Table 5b)– Carbon balance for woody biomass (Table F1)– Carbon balance for the forest ecosystem (Table F2)– Material balance, physical: use (Table 6a), part of the Framework– Material balance, physical: make (Table 6b), part of the FrameworkFurther tables in the Framework are Tables 7a-c, 8a-c, and a synthesis table of wood content in products, fuelwood and waste

– For the priority tables and the whole system of tables, Marilise presented Eurostat’s proposal from Doc. 03, noting some errors in the last paragraph in the numbering of the supply and use tables. Edoardo Pizzoli presented the overview of all accounts in Chart A.1 in the annex and the tables in Chart 1 of the document, showing a proposal for

A “root system” of tables 1, 2 and 3a;

Core “priority tables” for reporting: 1, 2, 3a, 3c, F2 and 6;

Four non-priority tables: F1, 3b, 4 and 5

There was an initial discussion of the whole system, with the aim of sounding out where countries see the priorities. Arturo proposed to come back to the details later on in the meeting. Marilise raised a question already discussed at the last meeting of the WG on forestry statistics and accounts of January 2014: whether the currently used complete set of 13 tables should be kept viable and updated (to any changes in classifications) or whether only the sub-set of tables for reporting should be updated and the remaining tables should be dropped.

The discussion resulted in all countries present stating that Table 3c (monetary) is the most important priority table for reporting, followed by Tables 1 and 2 (physical and monetary), Table F2 (found to be more interesting than the table reported to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and encompassing the information covered in Table F1) and lastly Table 6. For budgetary reasons and because of the needs of national accounts, AT would only support a legal basis for Table 3c, whilst acknowledging that Tables 1 and 2 are interesting as well. All countries present accepted that Tables 1, 2 and 3c are the most important 'core' tables of the IEEAF framework. The general feeling was that regardless of any reporting obligations, the current complete set of 13 tables should be kept viable because

It is yet the best and most complete set of all the current environmental accounts

Countries are using different parts of the set, including Tables 4 and 5 (supply and use, both physical and monetary) for the consumption side of timber, for national purposes

There would no longer be a system of forest accounts if most tables were dropped

The environmental aspects should be maintained or expanded

The last point would be a reason to keep Table 2c on defoliation, which PL and DE publish at national level, while other countries have discontinued data collection (AT, UK, PT).

2

Nota bene: The question of covering further environmental aspects, such as forest health and vitality, forest bird indicators or other main indicators of sustainable forest management under IEEAF accounts and tables was discussed later under agenda item 8.

4) Achieving conceptual consistency, based on the set of tables currently in use. Under this agenda item, there was a discussion of conceptual issues in general, across all tables. The numbering of discussion points follows the numbering in Doc. 04.

4.1 Land area to be covered by Tables 1 and 2

The discussion showed once again that it is very difficult to reconcile all of the different national and international definitions of land used to produce timber and cork (national definitions vs. FRA1 definitions vs. land use definitions vs. production definitions). In Germany, for example, legislation covers non-forest land used for the production of timber. This is why Germany would like IEEAF to focus only on forest land and not on agricultural land. At the other extreme, Portugal has large areas of short-rotation forests (eucalyptus) and ago-forestry (cork oaks) that are included in the national forest inventory (NFI).

For these reasons, Eurostat maintains that statistical definitions are needed and that all areas used to produce timber and related non-wood products (e.g. cork), including agro-forestry areas, should be included under IEEAF, even if it may initially be difficult to gather or estimate the relevant data in the Member States. What most countries can currently provide are data corresponding more or less to the FRA definitions. Everything else will take more time to establish. Eurostat also stated that only the cells that are relevant for each country would need to be reported.

The participants agreed that all areas used to produce timber should be at least implicitly included because it is not known where the total removals, as reported under the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ), are sourced. The difficulty will be to attribute quantities of timber (growing stock, removals) to different types of land.

It was decided to drop the category 'LULUCF definition' from the land use categories of Tables 1 and 2 because the differences to the FRA definitions would have to be explained to the data users.

4.2 Standing timber, concept and definitions

Edoardo proposed to record deadwood since it is part of wood removed when dead trees are still standing. Germany agreed; particularly oaks can be harvested up to 2 years after death. The outcome of the discussion was that since deadwood is reported to Forest Europe, it doesn't need to be covered by IEEAF, since it is not an important part of timber removals. Finland said the important items are the opening and closing stocks of growing timber. IEEAF should refer only to 'timber' when growth and increment are concerned, not to 'standing timber', because standing dead trees don’t increase the biomass.

4.3 Cultivated timber and corresponding wooded land

The 2nd meeting of the TF proposed to use 'Forests available for wood supply' (FAWS) as a proxy for the 'cultivated forests' used by national accounts. The Austrian Economic Accounts for Forestry (EAF) use

1 Forest Resources Assessment, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations3

FAWS2 and reduce it by a certain factor to estimate 'cultivated forests'. FI and DE however value all timber for national accounts; FI considers all its forests to be cultivated for the purposes of national accounts, while in the areas not available for wood supply (NAWS), there is no forestry activity and the timber there hence has no value. It is however straightforward to calculate a proxy value for areas NAWS, which is done by FI and DE. The UK considers even its protected forests to be available for wood supply. It seems that full consistency between countries will not be achievable on this question.

The UNECE asked whether 'Other land with tree cover' (OLWTC) aims at covering landscape trees and urban parks. Marilise said no, the aim was just to find a heading for 'agroforestry', short-rotation forestry' and 'short-rotation coppices', which are used to grow timber or cork. These activities are classified as 'Forestry' in NACE Rev. 2. Alexandra thought there could be a risk of double-counting with OLWTC because in FR the NFI has difficulties distinguishing between forests (FO) and other wooded land (OWL).

4.4 Annual increment, gross or net

There was a discussion on gross vs. net annual increment (GAI vs. NAI). It was agreed that both are interesting, because the GAI is part of the biological production of forests. Germany uses GAI in its models of timber growth. However, only the NAI is needed for the other tables, except for F1 and F2 (carbon storage).

On the subject of catastrophic losses due to forest fires, it will be difficult to specify the timber volume lost. In France, only the area data are readily available. For losses due to windstorms, these can only be specified some years after the storm, when it becomes clear that the stored trunks can no longer be sold. A 'Storage' column was used by France for the 1999 storm.

Finland confirmed that 'Catastrophic losses' are subtracted from the growing stock ('Work-in-progress').

Marilise proposed to use 'Irretrievable losses' instead of 'Catastrophic losses', in keeping with the concepts in SEEA 20123, to make it clear that these are losses that will never be removed or used as timber.

4.5 Own account output and use

It was clarified that the variables used in Tables 3b and 3c are identical and that it would be too difficult to disaggregate this variable into different products.

4.6 Output and NACE Rev. 2

France pointed out that NACE Rev. 2 includes the production of standing timber, so there is no coherence problem with 'Wood in the rough'.

4.7 Market/non-market issues

The TF agreed that only a total of 'Own final use' should be asked for in Table 3c. Although it is a coherent table, Table 3b is not feasible in practice. Tables 3a and 3c are the more relevant tables.

4.8 Consistency with the European System of Accounts, ESA 2010

2 The results of the Austrian EAF are also used for national accounts; therefore, “bridge tables” have to be drawn up to reconcile the methodological differences between the EAF and national accounts.3 System of environmental-economic accounting 2012, Central framework

4

The TF agreed that the value of trees not planted for timber, but to produce other products that provide a regular income, constitutes gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Examples of such products are cork, sweet chestnuts, pine nuts and resins. AT pointed out that the value of short-rotation coppices planted for timber also constitutes GFCF.

4.9 Wood in the rough and wood supply

Table 3a covers 'Wood in the rough' (in the CPA, this term means all roundwood logs including fuel wood), whereas Table 3c has a list of wood assortments,

– Sawlogs– Fuelwood– Pulpwood and other industrial roundwood– Small-diameter timber and stumps

According to Germany, the assortments should sum up to 'Wood in the rough', minus the bark and the harvesting losses, because the assortments are already prepared for removal by the loggers, whereas 'Wood in the rough' is the felled roundwood, still with the bark on, according to Finland. Since it is doubtful that both stages are estimated, the two items can be considered to be equivalent for practical purposes and the wood assortments can be used as a proxy of wood in the rough.

The assortment 'Small-diameter timber and stumps' is however not part of what was measured as 'Growing stock' in Table 2, although it is frequently removed and used. Table 2 does not explicitly include the harvesting of stumps, a recent innovation. This means that the coverage of Tables 2 and 3 either

Does not agree (if 'Small-diameter timber and stumps' are reported in Table 3c, but are not covered by Table 2), or

The 'Growing stock' and 'Removals' in Table 2 should be adjusted to include 'Small-diameter timber and stumps'

This point remains to be discussed in the future.

France pointed out that the current IEEAF tables use a mix of measurement over bark (Table 2) and under bark (Tables 3, 4 and 5). By contrast, the JFSQ collects under bark data. It would be good to unify the IEEAF collection and decide to have over bark measurement throughout.

To get an authoritative view on the definition of 'Wood in the rough', the Harmonised System's (HS) Explanatory Notes (2012) were consulted after the meeting. The HS is the reference for all the other product classifications. It says

and the text says (quote)

5

In principle, therefore, both 'Wood in the rough' and the wood assortments could be expressed over bark in IEEAF and could include any small-diameter timber and stumps that are removed. For the moment, only BG, PL, PT, SK, NO and BA report the value of this assortment in Table 3c, see Eurostat's database.

4.10 Institutional units and local kind-of-activity units

Edoardo introduced this topic using Tables 3a and 3b (products by industries): a breakdown of output by industries is needed for national accounts, using local kind-of-activity units (local KAUs). All local KAUs with the same principal activity make up an industry. For Table 3c, only the industry 'Forestry and logging' is used. According to the participants, it seems that Table 3c is currently compiled without recourse to a survey or census of any production units belonging to the main activity 'Forestry and logging' (NACE Rev. 2). Edoardo concluded that it would be useful to make an inventory of the data sources used by countries for Table 3c.

5) The new tables on wooded land and standing timber, based on the results of the 2nd TF meeting. What changes do we need?

The discussion started with the rows of Tables 1 and 2, as discussed at the 2nd meeting of the TF, but with an additional breakdown by land cultivated, not cultivated, strictly protected and other (see Doc. 05). It was pointed out by France that this additional breakdown ensures consistency with the SEEA and with ESA 2010. It would however produce even more blank cells than the proposal discussed at the 2nd meeting, which also had a line for each aggregate.

It was commented that this additional breakdown is a purely economic one. ‘Strictly protected’ means different things, as some protected forests are available for wood supply. The areas not available for wood supply should be considered to be ‘Not cultivated’ and these would be areas with a mainly environmental function. It is difficult to estimate what proportion of ‘Other wooded land’ is available for wood supply in southern Europe. Portugal thought it very good to have the complete breakdown by the land use types agro-forestry, short-rotation forestry and short-rotation coppices.

Marilise asked whether ‘Other wooded land’ is covered by NFIs in all the countries present; the answer is yes, although the lower limit of a 5% canopy cover of the FRA definition is difficult to assess for the French NFI. After the meeting, FR noted that the area limit used for 'Other wooded land' in its NFI is now lower than the 0.5 ha used by the FRA.

In response to the three questions in the document, France proposed to define

1. An ideal set of rows; this would be the complete set of rows2. A voluntary set, smaller than the ideal set3. A mandatory set of rows, smaller yet

As a result of the discussion, Arturo summed up that the voluntary set could comprise Forest and other wooded land (FOWL) categories cultivated / non-cultivated and protected /not protected. The mandatory set could comprise FOWL categories available for wood supply and not available for wood supply.

The columns of Table 2 were discussed next. The same kind of approach as for the rows (ideal, voluntary and mandatory) was proposed. However, the discussion proved lengthy due to the fact that some countries sell roadside timber (e.g. Germany) and others sell standing timber (e.g. France) and are

6

thus interested in different variables. Germany thinks that the opening and closing stocks should be concerned only with living trees, while France thinks both should cover all standing timber, i.e. living and dead trees for the monetary assessment.

It was agreed that the data needed for the other tables are opening and closing stocks, GAI, NAI, removals and harvesting losses, all measured over bark. This could be the mandatory set.

Years with storms require timber storage. Additionally, it would be good to have fellings because the removals don’t concern living trees only. Very often in the past, fellings have been reported instead of removals, so it is good to have both. Note that Germany doesn’t have annual data on fellings. These data could be part of the voluntary set.

It is likely that no country will report natural mortality on an annual basis; these are average figures taken from tables established through the long-term experience of the work on NFIs. This column could be part of the ideal set.

The TF discussed that the name of Table 2 could be 'Growing stock of timber on wooded land' or simply 'Timber'.

12 December 2014

Arturo summed up the results of the previous day:

Table 3c need not be touched unnecessarily Tables 1 and 2 can have theoretical, voluntary and mandatory rows and columns Table 1: no change was proposed to the columns Table 2 was discussed at length and it is difficult to simplify the columns Table 3a is about products, but since most of the TF members attribute all of the output to

forestry, this table is less informative. Marilise presented the reduced columns of Table 2, the result of the previous day’s discussions, using the layout resulting from the previous meeting of the TF. The voluntary columns are shaded, as are the rows proposed to be deleted:

Table 2. Growing stock of timber on wooded land (1000 m3 o.b.)Country:Year:

Gross Increment

(+)

Natural losses and mortality (-)

Net increment

(+)

Removals (-)

Harvest-ing losses

(-)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Forest 100 0 0 100 -100 155 20 -75 25 available for wood supply 0 80 20 0 of which agro-forestry 0 0 of which short-rotation forestry 0 0 of which short-rotation coppices 0 0 not available for wood supply 100 0 -100 75 -75 -75Other wooded land 0 0 of which available for wood supply 0 0 0 50 0 of which agro-forestry 0 0Other land with tree cover 0 0 of which agro-forestry 0 0 of which short-rotation forestry 0 0 of which short-rotation coppices 0 0TOTAL (according to … definition) 100 0 0 100 -100 155 20 -75 25TOTAL LULUCF forest area

Grey columns only supplementary

Opening stocks

Closing stocks

Storage (+/-)Fellings (-)

Irretrievable losses (-

)

Statistical reclassif.,

changes in use/ status

(+/-)

Changes

7

Edoardo proposed to take into account the estimation errors produced by this over-simplified classification.

The group discussed that Table 2 in its current state is not a mass balance of all timber available, since it only covers trunk wood and removals are only the removed fellings, without the smaller branches of the tree crown. Timber in storage is no longer part of the forest ecosystem. The removals are needed for ‘Intermediate consumption’ in Table 3c. ‘Statistical reclassification’ is important for the monetary part of the table (as pointed out by FI), while the environmental component can be covered by the difference between over bark data and under bark data (i.e. the harvesting losses, as pointed out by DE).

Arturo asked whether the physical and monetary sides of Table 2 could be de-coupled. DE answered that there are volumes that are never paid for, for example due to illegal activities.

Table 1: Marilise proposed to delete the two columns ‘Other changes’. DE, AT and the UK answered that they can’t allocate the changes to economic and to natural causes and therefore they need 'Other changes'. These columns could be voluntary. At that stage, Table 1 looked as follows:

Table 1a. Area of wooded land (1000 ha)Country:Year:

Economic activities

Natural causes

Other changes

Economic activities

Natural causes

Other changes

Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 available for wood supply 0 of which agro-forestry 0 of which short-rotation forestry 0 of which short-rotation coppices 0 not available for wood supply 0Other wooded land 0 of which available for wood supply 0 of which agro-forestry 0Other land with tree cover 0 of which agro-forestry 0 of which short-rotation forestry 0 of which short-rotation coppices 0TOTAL (according to … definition) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL LULUCF forest area

Opening area

Changes Closing

areaAdditions to the area (+) Reductions in area (-) Reclassifi-

cation (+/-)

6) Estimation methods for wooded land and standing timber

On different types of forest, other wooded land, and other land with tree cover: are physical and monetary data available? (first bullet point on the agenda under item 6)

6.A.1 Wooded land, sources for physical estimates: NFIs, land registers, permits and land cover surveys

DE: NFIs exclude short-rotation coppices (SRC) and urban parks. Land registers follow an entirely different system from NFIs. Short-rotation forestry (SRF) is forbidden because clear-cut is forbidden.

FI: similar to DE; no annual data are available from NFIs, which are done every seven years. FI will just divide the data by seven. Land cover surveys can support this work. OWL is very marginal.

UK: the NFI only covers forests, although options to extend it to smaller areas are under discussion. Land cover surveys used to be inconsistent with NFIs, but in future they may be integrated with the NFI.

8

PT: NFIs are conducted approximately every ten years, covering forest, OWL and OLWTC. Land cover surveys use the Corine land cover classes, which are conceptually incompatible with the NFIs. There is a good rural register for the south of the country, but not for the north. There is a register for agricultural support measures and permits for cork harvesting. FLEGT (EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) and the EU timber Regulation4 will make permits obligatory.

PL: annual information exists for forest land only (surveys).

FR: the NFI samples 20% of the forest area annually. The results are calculated as a moving average of five years, e.g. 2010 data is an average of 2008-2012. OWL is covered separately. The NFI also gives some information about land use and land cover. Tax registers are not used for wooded land because they are not updated often. Permits exist, but the Ministry of Agriculture isn’t sure they are on a database. Teruti-LUCAS surveys produce significantly different estimates from NFIs, but give the most reliable information on land use and land cover. The differences with respect to the NFIs are being analysed, but they are not yet eliminated.

AT: the main source is the NFI, conducted approximately every 5 years. Information on SRF on agricultural land has been obtained with the Farm Structure Survey (last conducted in 2013 as a sample survey).

6.A.2 Wooded land, sources for monetary estimates

Even in Finland, where values of transactions are recorded and the Forestry Development Centre Tapio produces unit prices for different types of forest land, such estimates are difficult, as shown in the annex of Doc. 06. Finland plans to use modelling to estimate the value of forest land without the timber upon it, both for national accounts and for IEEAF. No new data collection is planned.

The UK is setting up ecosystems accounts; work to date has been mainly focused on the physical side.

In PT, the Ministry of Finance has confidential information on transactions. The Institute of Nature Conservation and Forests had a good database until 2006, but now performs estimates. A database for public forests (13% of forests) is being set up.

In PL, 81% of forests are state-owned, so the market price of wood is well known. The national statistical institute (NSI) is going to use these data for modelling.

In FR, a private institute produces an index of properties which is quite good; it is used to model prices. Since 2010, The Ministry of Agriculture also produces a price index. Transaction values exist, but they are confidential.

In AT, possible sources would be the “real estate database” or the “government register”, but there are very few transactions and only certain authorities have access to the databases. Very rough recent estimates amounted to approximately 1-2 EUR /m2, with maximum prices of up to 15-20 EUR/m2 for forest land. AT would be able to fill in Table 1b only with very rough estimates.

4 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market

9

6.B.1 Timber, sources for physical estimates

In FI, good data are available for both physical and monetary values of fellings. The other numbers would come from the NFI.

The UK would use the NFI for stocks and growth, while the removals would come from annual surveys of the UK timber industry.

In PT, the NFI would be used, while removals would be estimated based on sawnwood data from the association of timber and sawmills and on PRODCOM data. There are problems in getting reliable data on fuelwood.

PL would use the NFI (20% of the forest has been sampled annually in the past 10 years, a practice which will probably be continued). A separate land survey is run by the NSI; it provides information about annual removals.

FR would use the NFI and the annual survey of the Ministry of Agriculture for Table 2a. For catastrophic losses, official public estimates are done in the Département where the losses occur.

AT would use its reliable NFI data.

DE would use the NFI for stocks, but lacks data on net annual increment (NAI is modelled) and on removals (calculated as the difference between 2 successive NFIs). There are low-quality estimates of removals from the wood market surveys of the Länder. The use-side could be developed, meaning sawmills, the pulping industry and fuelwood consumption. Sawnwood produces 40% of co-products, whereby removals could be estimated at the end of each year.

6.B.2 Timber, sources for monetary estimates

DE has average prices per type of owner, i.e. state forests, municipal forests, large private forests, small private forests. It also has an accounting network ('Testbetriebsnetz'), collaborating with the ones in place in Switzerland and Austria, and covering all owners. This network has proven very useful, in particular for filling in Table 3c.

FI has the market prices for all categories of owners. The data are mostly reliable, though not for fuelwood. Finland recommends stumpage prices5 for the valuation of timber, a rough, but good method.

The UK has prices from the sales of coniferous state timber and uses them as a proxy for all owners. Hardwood prices are however a problem.

In PT, the NSI uses PRODCOM data to report on Table 3c. The NSI discusses possible improvements with the Institute of Nature Conservation and Forests.

PL uses tables of value indicators per m3 from property estimators, broken down by type of stand.

5 Stumpage is the price a private firm pays for the right to harvest timber from a given land base. It is paid to the current owner of the land. Historically, the price was determined on a basis of the number of trees harvested, or “per stump”. Currently it is dictated by more standard measurements such as cubic metres. (Wikipedia) Stumpage prices should be established for the different categories of standing timber: by species, age classes, locations and uses (e.g. logs, pulpwood, fuel wood; IEEAF Framework 1999).

10

FR uses the NFI, the survey of the Ministry of Agriculture and data from the Office National des Forêts that manages public forests.

AT has reliable prices per species and quality from monthly reports of the district forest offices to the NSI, including for fuelwood.

To summarise, while there remain many challenges in order to produce volume and value estimates, the greatest problem will be the estimation of the value of wooded land minus the timber growing on it.

The fit of definitions and data with the 3-yearly Farm Structure Survey and the 10-yearly Agricultural census on land classification (second bullet point on the agenda under item 6)

The TF did not identify a preference for any of the definitions of agro-forestry, short-rotation forestry (SRF) or short-rotation coppices (SRC).

PT said that eucalyptus for pulping is grown as SRC in Portugal. It is cut every 12 years and re-planted after 36 years, so this practice doesn't fit the definition of SRC in the documents. For biomass production, the definition of SRC fits; this is completely different from eucalyptus production.

An exchange of emails after the meeting led to the following proposal for a definition of SRC:

Short-rotation coppices: densely planted high-yielding varieties of tree species that are either

(i) planted as an energy crop or for basket-making and are harvested on a 2-5 year cycle (commonly a 3-year cycle) following coppice of the first establishment year's growth. This forms a multi-stem plantation, with each stool producing up to 20 shoots (TSEC-Biosys: Bioenergy Crops UK, 2006). A plantation could be viable for up to 30 years before re-planting becomes necessary, although this depends on the productivity of the stools (DEFRA, Short Rotational Coppice - Best Practice Guidelines (PB7135), 2011)or(ii) planted for pulpwood production (usually poplars or eucalyptus) and are harvested on a 9-15 year cycle, forming a multi-stem plantation following the first coppice. Before the first cut, such a plantation is indistinguishable from short-rotation forestry. A plantation could remain viable for 27-45 years before re-planting becomes necessary, depending on the productivity of the stools.

Classification used in Tables 1 and 2 for the growing of timber on agricultural land

In Tables 1 and 2, Eurostat used the heading "Other land with tree cover" (OLWTC, as defined by FAO/FRA) to cover the growing of timber on agricultural land by means of agro-forestry, short-rotation forestry and short-rotation coppices.

As discussed by the TF, the disadvantage of using OLWTC is that it also covers orchards of olive, nut and fruit trees, so that no aggregate of the timber-growing alone can be indicated by the reporting country.

11

Under point A.1.6 of Doc. 06, a new, overarching term and concept "Area of woodland" from paragraph 8.13.4 of the World programme for the Census of Agriculture 2020 (WCA 2020) Vol. 1 is described. It encompasses

a. Forest land as primary land useb. Other wooded land as primary land usec. Forest land as secondary land use on agricultural landd. Other wooded land as secondary land use on agricultural lande. Other woodland

Sub-item e. covers those areas that span less than 0.5 ha and satisfy all the other criteria for either forest land or other wooded land. Sub-items c., d. and e. cover precisely the growing of timber on agricultural land by means of agro-forestry, short-rotation forestry and short-rotation coppices.

Therefore, Tables 1 and 2 could use "Woodland on agricultural land" instead of OLWTC. It would then be possible to give an estimate for this heading in case the detailed breakdown into agro-forestry, short-rotation forestry and short-rotation coppices is not feasible.

Table 1 (physical): Area of woodland (1000 ha)Country:Year:

Economic activities

Natural causes

Other changes

Economic activities

Natural causes

Other changes

Forest available for wood supply of which agro-forestry of which short-rotation forestry of which short-rotation coppices not available for wood supply Other wooded land of which available for wood supply Woodland on agricultural land of which agro-forestry of which short-rotation forestry of which short-rotation coppicesTOTAL

Grey columns only supplementary; rows in grey are voluntary

Opening area

Changes Closing

areaAdditions to the area (+) Reductions in area (-) Reclassifi-

cation (+/-)

Table 2 (physical): Growing stock of timber on woodland (1000 m3 o.b.)Country:Year:

Gross Increment

(+)

Natural losses and mortality (-)

Net increment

(+)

Removals (-)

Harvest-ing losses

(-)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Forest available for wood supply of which agro-forestry of which short-rotation forestry of which short-rotation coppices not available for wood supply Other wooded land of which available for wood supply Woodland on agricultural land of which agro-forestry of which short-rotation forestry of which short-rotation coppicesTOTAL

Grey columns only supplementary; rows in grey are voluntary

Opening stock

Changes Statistical reclassif.,

changes in use/ status

(+/-)

Closing stockFellings (-) Storage

(+/-)

Irretrievable losses (-

)

The above tables are identical to the ones on pp. 7 and 8, but use the proposed terminology 'Woodland on agricultural land'; the voluntary rows are shaded and the superfluous row on LULUCF is deleted.

12

To summarise, another difficult part of the work will be to estimate both the physical and monetary values of the cultivation of timber on agricultural woodland without counting areas already included in national forest inventories twice.

7) How do the concepts of the new tables fit with Table 3c?

Doc. 07 shows all the links between variables in different tables of the system in a long list of equations. The numbers must be coherent between all of the tables. However, some of the relations are not equalities because the own-account production is missing.

For example, for the links with Table 2, the value of the net annual increment of all types of cultivated timber (on forest, other wooded land, and woodland on agricultural land) is to be included in the forestry production part of Table 3c. This means that the values of the increment of non-cultivated timber of Table 2 are not needed for Table 3c.

The 'Changes in inventories', of which 'Work-in-progress', at the end of Table 3c are equal to 'Net annual increment' minus 'Irretrievable losses' minus 'Removals', all of them from cultivated forests.

Table 3c totals must be the same as in national accounts. This takes the discussion back to Table 3a, which is informative because it shows all products, not just timber. However the TF felt that this table may not be a reporting table because of the lack of data.

8) How do the new tables fit with the other tables?

The discussion on Table 3a continued with Doc. 08. It transpired that most countries can only fill in the column on forestry and logging, not agriculture. Data on recreation are few; FI said it filled this in for the pilot studies in the early 2000s, but that now, this is almost impossible. Marilise suggested that the future Farm Structure Surveys could provide information on agriculture, while entrance fees and the cost of employees of national parks could go under recreation.

Edoardo noted that the national accounts have precise rules on what belongs to an industry. They should be followed to avoid double counting of the same economic aggregates under different industries and to enable comparisons between the same industries in different countries.

Table F1 (carbon balance for woody biomass) can easily be calculated from Table 2 using conversion factors. Table F2 (carbon balance for the forest ecosystem) is more interesting; it could be transformed as presented on p. 5 of Doc. 08. The lower part of Table F2 (on carbon in harvested wood products) could be optional. Such data are covered by Decision EU/529/2013 in Article 7 (paper, wood panels and sawn wood) and can be derived from the JFSQ.

Arturo proposed that Table F2 could be voluntary, with a breakdown as presented on p. 5 of Doc. 08. Several members of the TF raised concerns about multiple reporting burdens and the need to focus on the purpose of the accounts. Eurostat strives to cover both environmental and economic aspects with the IEEAF reporting, but this goal must be balanced with the identification of priorities.

The TF discussed three additional environmental indicators proposed on p. 6 of Doc. 08: forest area of mixed tree species, forest area under Natura2000 and a forest bird indicator. This would be an effort to make IEEAF more "environmental". The general feeling was that even if such indicators are mostly available, there is no need to combine them with IEEAF because the remit of forest accounts should be monitoring timber resources in terms of physical and monetary flows.

13

Discussion of the desirability of a table on a material balance of timber:

The TF discussed Table 6. DE and FI said Table 6 is merely a summary of Tables 4 and 5 on supply and use, so it would be necessary to fill in those two tables in order to derive Table 6. FI presented a comprehensive 'Use balance ', consisting of a table with the products in CPA-classes in the columns and the industries in the rows. Roundwood is expressed in m3 over bark, while a second unit is million tonnes of dry matter. FI said that most, but not all of these data are needed for a mass balance. It is a combined supply-use table and is not easy to calculate. Because of budget cuts, FI will no longer continue such work next year.

The UNECE said this Finnish table is similar to the tool it uses to validate the JFSQ data. The hardest part is to agree on conversion factors, which the countries are asked to supply. Apparently the UNECE's wood flow analysis for AT was consistent with the JFSQ data. The data gaps usually concern wood waste and data on small sawmills.

The TF agreed that this kind of work was beyond the remit of monitoring timber resources.

Ranking of the tables:

The TF agreed that the ranking of the tables as regards priorities should be

1) Mandatory core tables for reporting: Tables 1, 2 and 3c. Austria pointed out that it would only support a legal basis for Table 3c.

2) Voluntary priority tables: F2 (top part, no breakdown into harvested wood products) and 4

3) Non-priority tables: the remaining five tables of the current set of thirteen tables (2006 version)

This result will be reported to the Working Group on forestry statistics and accounting in February 2015.

9) Is IEEAF a good name and acronym for integrated forest accounts?

The proposals for this agenda item were SAF, SAFL, FLA, FORACC, IFA, IFORA, FORA, FACT, FAST …

The TF agreed that the name depends on the coverage. Austria thought it would be good to mention the word 'satellite'; Germany liked IFA; Finland said 'Forest accounts' without an acronym would fit well as a module of the intended legal base. No conclusion was reached.

10) Timing of data transmission

Currently, the request for Table 3c data of year Y-2 is sent out in early July, with a deadline of 10 September. Several countries are already supplying data of Y-1 for this deadline. The UK thinks that the autumn/winter would be a good time to request the data. Eurostat concluded that if the data were requested for November, they would be well co-ordinated with the production of estimates for national accounts.

11) Next steps: implementation in 2015 and presentation to

The results of the Task force will be reported to

– The Forestry statistics and accounting WG of 26-27 February 2015 as a semi-final report

– The Environmental accounts and environmental expenditure statistics WGs of 9-10 March 201514

– The DIMESA bureau of 25 March and the DIMESA meeting on 10-11 June 2015

Eurostat will decide whether to test the new Tables 1 and 2 in the 2015 IEEAF data collection exercise, followed by a final meeting of the TF.

12) Any other business

The rows of Tables 1 and 2 were to be sent out to the participants in the week after the meeting, but this timetable was not kept.

Summary of the conclusions:

1) The revised and updated set of thirteen IEEAF tables should be kept viable and updated to reflect changes in the classifications (NACE, CPA), for use by the Member States

2) The most important 'core' tables of the IEEAF framework identified by the 3rd meeting of the Task force are Tables 1a and b, 2a and b, and 3c. Eurostat envisages future legal cover for this core set. Within the core set, not all variables will be mandatory. The non-mandatory variables will be shaded

3) Eurostat proposes a further sub-set of three tables for voluntary reporting to Eurostat: Tables 4a and b, and F2 (upper part)

4) The remaining five tables of the current set of IEEAF tables will not be requested by Eurostat, but will be part of the revised conceptual framework for forest accounts

5) There are some minor technical points that could be discussed at a 4th meeting of the Task force. In principle, however, the revised Tables 1a and b, 2a and b, and 3c could be used to collect pilot data

6) Difficult parts of the work will be to estimate the monetary value of wooded land under cultivation (as separate from the timber growing on that land) and of all cultivation on agricultural woodland

List of participants

AT Matthias SCHERMAIERDE Hermann ENGLERTDE Claudia KRÜGERFI Jukka MUUKKONENFR Olivier KURTEKPL Magdalena GABINSKAPT Graça Maria LOUROUK Sheila WARDPrivate expert Alexandra NIEDZWIEDZUNECE Florian STEIEREREurostat Arturo DE LA FUENTE NUÑO

Edoardo PIZZOLIMarilise WOLF-CROWTHER

15