Klemens Schadauer

National Forest Inventories: Prospects for Harmonised International Reporting

Despite the important differences in inventory estimates resulting from the use of different national definitions, variables, and variable thresholds, prospects for developing procedures leading to compatible estimates amongst countries are generally positive. Analyses of national definitions and responses to questionnaires distributed by COST Action E43 indicate that definitions tend to be based on the same rather small set of inventory variables. For example, national definitions of forest all focus on minimum area, minimum cover, minimum width, and minimum height, although the thresholds for these variables differ considerably among countries (Vidal et al. 2008). Important differences among these national definitions relate mostly to kinds of lands with tree cover that are considered forest for reporting purposes: for example, managed versus unmanaged forest land, inclusion or exclusion of forested park and leisure lands, inclusion or exclusion of forest lands whose tree cover consists primarily of non-native species, and inclusion or exclusion of permanently non-stocked areas within forest land (Cienciala et al. 2008).

The role of European National Forest Inventories for international forestry reporting

Key messageDespite agreements on definitions, the national data provided for international reporting are lacking comparability. To address this limitation the European National Forest Inventory Network has established criteria to harmonise definitions and to provide tools to transform national data into internationally comparable data.ContextForest reporting presents a series of challenges for countries, owing to diverse processes at international level such as the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Further challenges are faced at European level with Forest Europe and policy needs.AimsThe aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the national and international forest reporting processes and of the role of the National Forest Inventories (NFIs) and the long-associated challenges resulting from a lack of comparability in definitions used. In addition, there is a discussion on the role of the European National Forest Inventory Network (ENFIN) as a facilitator for enhancing harmonization and comparability of national data and the ancillary information required to monitor European forestry-related policies.MethodsNFIs take part to international reporting processes as providers of information. They are correspondent to the FRA process, and then they know very well the context of harmonization. Participating in the ENFIN research projects, NFIs, and particularly authors, conducted a screening exercise on harmonization status at European and World level.ResultsThis review article is a synthesis of the main findings of the abovementioned screening exercise. It highlights the main gaps in terms of comparability of result in international reporting. Thanks to ENFIN harmonization research project, it gives same ways of working as a possible benchmark for the rest of the world.ConclusionBased on the international reporting exercises, their interactions, and impacts on new forestry policy requirements, the need for a strengthened harmonization process can clearly be demonstrated. Due to European policy needs, research work within ENFIN has been initiated to develop tools for building comparable results at international level. This work is an important benchmark particularly for countries outside Europe from which to base future harmonization work.

Comparison of methods used in European National Forest Inventories for the estimation of volume increment: towards harmonisation

Key messageThe increment estimation methods of European NFIs were explored by means of 12 essential NFI features. The results indicate various differences among NFIs within the commonly acknowledged methodological frame. The perspectives for harmonisation at the European level are promising.ContextThe estimation of increment is implemented differently in European National Forest Inventories (NFIs) due to different historical origins of NFIs and sampling designs and field assessments accommodated to country-specific conditions. The aspired harmonisation of increment estimation requires a comparison and an analysis of NFI methods.AimsThe objective was to investigate the differences in volume increment estimation methods used in European NFIs. The conducted work shall set a basis for harmonisation at the European level which is needed to improve information on forest resources for various strategic processes.MethodsA comprehensive enquiry was conducted during Cost Action FP1001 to explore the methods of increment estimation of 29 European NFIs. The enquiry built upon the preceding Cost Action E43 and was complemented by an analysis of literature to demonstrate the methodological backgrounds.ResultsThe comparison of methods revealed differences concerning the NFI features such as sampling grids, periodicity of assessments, permanent and temporary plots, use of remote sensing, sample tree selection, components of forest growth, forest area changes, sampling thresholds, field measurements, drain assessment, involved models and tree parts included in estimates.ConclusionIncrement estimation methods differ considerably among European NFIs. Their harmonisation introduces new issues into the harmonisation process. Recent accomplishments and the increased use of sample-based inventories in Europe make perspectives for harmonised reporting of increment estimation promising.

From inventory to consumer biomass availability—the ITOC model

Key message The application of the ITOC model allows the estimation of available biomass potentials from forests on the basis of National Forest Inventory data. The adaptation of the model to country-specific situations gives the possibility to further enhance the model calculations.ContextWith the rising demand for energy from renewable sources, up-to-date information about the available amount of biomass on a sustainable basis coming from forests became of interest to a wide group of stakeholders. The complexity of answering the question about amounts of biomass potentials from forests thereby increases from the regional to the European level.AimsThe described ITOC model aims at providing a tool to develop a comparable data basis for the actual biomass potentials for consumption.MethodsThe ITOC model uses a harmonized net annual increment from the National Forest Inventories as a default value for the potential harvestable volume of timber. The model then calculates the total theoretical potential of biomass resources from forests. By accounting for harvesting restrictions and losses, the theoretical potential of biomass resources from forests is reduced and the actual biomass potentials for consumption estimated.ResultsThe results from ITOC model calculations account for the difference between the amounts of wood measured in the forests and the actual biomass potentials which might be available for consumption under the model assumptions.ConclusionThe gap between forest resource assessments and biomass potentials which are available for consumption can be addressed by using the ITOC model calculation results.

Summary of Accomplishments

The overall objective of COST Action E43 was to enhance national forest inventories (NFI) for purposes of national and global reporting. In the process of accomplishing this objective the Action promoted scientifically sound methods for assessing forest resources, forest carbon pools and forest biodiversity. Beginning with international reporting requirements and the current status and practices of the NFIs, COST Action E43 focused on establishing reference definitions that could be commonly accepted by the participants and that would be applicable for international reporting. As explained in the previous chapters, these definitions are called reference definitions. However, common agreement was not achieved for a small proportion of proposed reference definitions, leaving need for further work. In addition to establishing definitions, techniques were developed to convert estimates based on national definitions to estimates based on reference definitions. These techniques can be viewed either as an intermediate step on the way to adoption of reference definitions or as permanent solutions if a country chooses not to use the reference definitions. This chapter briefly summarizes the main accomplishments of COST Action E43 and identifies future challenges.

Future Challenges for Woody Biomass Projections

Many drivers affect woody biomass projections including forest available for wood supply, market behavior, forest ownership, distributions by age and yield classes, forest typologies resulting from different edaphic, climatic conditions, and last but not least, how these factors are incorporated into projection systems. Net annual increment has been considered a useful variable for estimating future wood and biomass supply, but it can be misleading. In Europe, two different approaches have been used: a common European-level tool for all countries (“top-down” approach); and national tools (“bottom-up” approach). The trade-offs are that the “top-down” approach produces comparable results among countries, but ignores most of the topographic, climatic, vegetative and socio-economic conditions that are unique to countries and regions. The “bottom-up” approach better accommodates national and regional conditions but at the cost of comparability among country level results. A brief discussion of how these issues are handled in North America provides insights into different approaches and their linkages to national circumstances regarding country sizes, ownerships and general political frameworks. Another challenge lies in accommodating climate change and uncertainty in projections. Finally, working closely with experts from the demand side to minimize possible misunderstandings is also required. The first step towards increasing comparability of results from country-level projection systems is to understand the differences among these tools. Only then, can progress be made in terms of harmonizing the input and output variables or even progressing towards a common methodological approach and software structure.