Stein M' Tomter

1
MCPFE 2007 Enquiry quantitative indicators
results and lessons learned

• Stein M. Tomter

2
MCPFE quantitative indicators

• A Data collection process
• B Checking of country reports, communication
  with country correspondents
• C Preparation of result tables for MCPFE
  publication

3
MCPFE 2007 data collection process

• Questionnaire distributed 20.02.2006
• Deadline for reporting 20.07.2006
• In total 46 MCPFE countries
• By 20 July received 9 draft country reports
• By 14 September received 28 draft country reports
• All draft reports from responding countries
  received by mid-November
• 12 countries did not provide any country report,
  and the data had to be compiled from other
  sources
• 2 countries without forest resources

4
General problems

• No or poor indication of data quality
• Tables or cells that are not filled in. No
  indication of whether data are not available,
  insufficient or expected to be 0.
• Subgroups which do not sum up exactly to the
  totals
• Temporarily unstocked forest sometimes creates a
  difference in the forest area between different
  tables

5
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 1 Forest area
• Generally satisfactory, but sometimes incomplete
  data on other wooded land and on forest types.
  OWL available for wood supply non-existing in
  most countries
• Table 2 Growing stock
• Generally satisfactory, but sometimes incomplete
  data on other wooded land and on forest types.
  For growing stock on forest available for wood
  supply was sometimes used the FRA 2005 estimate
  of "commercial growing stock"

6
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 3.1/3.2 Age class distribution / diameter
  distribution
• The distinction between even-aged and uneven-aged
  forest does not exist in a number of countries.
  Thus the total forest area may have been reported
  under table 3.1, and no forest under table 3.2

7
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 4 Carbon stock
• High variability in estimates of dead wood and
  corresponding carbon stock. Relatively sparse
  data on OWL

8
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 5 Forest damage
• Recommended minimum size of each damage is 1 ha,
  but the reference unit is often smaller or
  unknown. Data are often available for only a few
  of the categories. The recommendation in
  Reporting notes on reporting damage present in
  the reporting year is difficult to comply with.
  Data availability for OWL relatively low

9
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 6 Increment and fellings
• Generally satisfactory, but harvesting losses,
  wood for self-consumption etc. are sometimes not
  included in fellings
• Table 7 Roundwood
• Generally satisfactory

10
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 8 Non-wood goods
• The table asks for marketed non-wood goods only,
  but in many cases countries reported the same
  quantities as for FRA 2005 (where the total
  harvest was requested). Reporting on some
  products (e.g. wild honey) is questionable
• Table 9 Marketed services
• Data availability is low. Some countries proposed
  the theoretical values of services currently not
  marketed

11
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 10 Forests under management plans
• Generally satisfactory
• Table 11 Tree species composition
• Detailed assessment of tree species is often only
  available from sample-based inventories. Thus it
  is difficult to apply forest stand as reference
  unit
• Table 12 Regeneration
• There was given no specification on which
  regeneration area to report, and the table was
  interpreted differently by countries

12
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 13 Naturalness
• Generally satisfactory
• Table 14 Introduced tree species
• Generally satisfactory. How to define as
  invasive?
• Table 15 Dead wood
• Limited availability of data, but reported
  figures look acceptable

13
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 16 Threatened forest species
• Relatively high variability, unknown quality
• Table 17 Protected forests
• Generally satisfactory
• Table 18 Protective forests soil, water and
  other ecosystem functions
• Generally satisfactory

14
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 19 Protective forests soil, water and
  other ecosystem functions
• Generally satisfactory
• Table 20 Forest holdings
• Generally satisfactory. Data for some of the
  countries did not include OWL
• Table 21 Energy from wood
• Frequently incomplete replies, especially for
  black liquors and post consumer wood energy

15
Reporting on individual tables

• Table 22 Accessibility for recreation
• Generally satisfactory
• Table 23 Cultural and spiritual values
• Usually incomplete replies, some categories (or
  all) are usually missing

16
Preparation of result tables

• Consistency checking, detection and correction of
  errors
• Revision of tables, increase completeness by
  filling in gaps
• Adding footnotes and supplementary information

17
Recommendations for future reporting

• Change the indication of data quality, e.g. by
  applying classes instead of range or standard
  error
• Include guidelines on how to handle temporarily
  unstocked areas under the various tables
• Forest damage Revise guidelines, especially with
  regard to minimum size and reference period

18
Recommendations for future reporting

• Marketed services Improve guidelines, propose
  how the values can be assessed
• Regeneration Necessary to specify exactly what
  area should be considered regeneration.
  Regeneration in uneven-aged stands is often a
  continuous process and difficult to approach...

19
Recommendations for future reporting

• Cultural and spiritual values Here would be
  preferable to include more detailed
  specifications on the object groups, to ensure
  that the same types of objects are being referred
  to