Download - COST Action E43 Harmonisation of National Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting
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 !