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

1. COST Action E43 Harmonisation of National Inventories in Europe: Techniques for Common Reporting UNECE / FAO Team of Specialist 2nd Meeting of the UNECE/FAO on “Monitoring forest resources for SFM in the UNECE Region”. Hamburg, Germany 29 – 30 May 2006

2. Participating countries: 27 European countries, USA and New Zealand

3. Status of E43 with respect to the goals • Goal: • To develop tools to report comparable estimates of • forest resources, forest carbon pools and biodiversity • indicators • Tools: • Select variables for basic forest resource, forest carbon pools • estimates and biodiversity indicators • Establish references • Definitions for the references • Analyses how far / near from the references countries are

4. Status of E43 with respect to the goals, cont • Develop tools to build bridges when reference is not • possible to reach • sensitivity analysis • Harmonised Forest resource estimates for core parameters • for the participating countries with error estimates • Reports, Publications • a common publication showing the status of NFIs and • also possibilities to provide harmonised forest resource, • carbon pool estimates and BD information, when, how ? • scientific publications • reports

5. Status of E43 with respect to the goals, cont • Activities so far to reach the Goals: • Selection of variables, references definitions • All WGs, • WG1: deep analysis for a few, core, variables • WG2: most LULUCF and Kyoto variables • considered, • completing the variable list, yet to be done • enhancing the definitions, yet to be done • WG3: a list of possible variables ready • The variables of WGs partly overlap and between WG • co-operation is going on

6. Status of E43 with respect to the goals, cont • Activities to reach the Goals: • Analyses how far from / near the references countries are • first reports are ready, based on questionnaires • responses to 2nd questionnaires received • Tools to build bridges • a real challenge • some work can be done with own resources, • e.g. DBH threshold and volume • some variables, including Forest land, need additional • measurements in the field, and resources • (JRC tenders ?) • In a long run, unique definitions are needed, this has been • realised also in IPCCC/LULUCF and Kyoto work

7. Status of E43 with respect to the goals, cont • Activities to reach the Goals: • For between WGs work, and also within WGs work, a • Glossary is needed • work already initiated • Forest resource estimates for core parameters for the • participating countries with sensitivity analysis • Reports, Publications

8. Examples of the results • Activities to reach the Goals: • For between WGs work, and also within WGs work, a • Glossary is needed • work already initiated • Forest resource estimates for core parameters for the • participating countries with sensitivity analysis • Reports, Publications

9. Results of WG1 % of forest area assessed 80% 3nb of countries forest area 60% 40 % 20% 8 4 3 2 1 1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% n/a coverage classes Forest definitionCoverage classes used

10. Results of WG1, Forest definitionCoverage classes used

11. Results of WG1, Forest definitionCrown cover 10 % / non 10 %

12. WG1, Forest Area and Volume of Growing Stock versus DBH Threshold

13. WG2 results, Land use issues • Forest definition applied

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

15. WG2 results, Land use issues • Is NFI used for land-use change detection?

16. WG2 results, NFI data on 5 carbon pools (%)

17. Adopted forest definition WG2 results, KP - definitions

18. Data for the baseline year (mostly 1990) WG2 results, KP - baseline

19. WG2 results, KP – ARD activities • The basis for ARD estimation

20. Development steps of WG3 activities References for core variables ?

22. WG3, DEADWOOD EXAMPLE What is included in your definition of deadwood?

23. WG3, DEADWOOD EXAMPLES Which specific biodiversity data are collected ? Are changes assessed in deadwood through time ?

24. WG3, FOREST TYPE EXAMPLE On wich basis forest type classification is implemented?

25. WG3, FOREST TYPE EXAMPLE Forest type classification is based on real or on potential vegetation?

26. WG3, FOREST TYPE EXAMPLE Wich is the main source of information for forest type classification?

27. Status of E43, next steps • To complete the analysis of the second questionnaires • To complete the reference definitions • Glossary as a bi-product • Tools to build bridges • Examples of harmonised estimates • Publications • 2 years to go, until the end of June, 2008 • More information: www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/

28. Status of E43, Next Steps Thank you !

29. Status of E43 with respect to the goals, cont Thank you !

30. General Activities within COST E43 since Freiburg meeting • Annual report • www.metla.fi/eu/cost/e43/reports/annual-report-2005-e43.pdf • A training school was excellently organized in Prague • in conjunction with IFER with positive results • Output is summarised on a leaflet, printing by COST? • STSM for WG2 in Prague without COST funding • in December 2005 • A steering committee meeting in Prague, 2-3 Feb • minutes available on web

31. General Activities within COST E43 since Freiburg meeting • A STSM with own funding and task force meeting in Vienna, • late March for WG1 • Responses to the 2nd questionnaires received, all WGS • first analyses available • Allocated home work from Freiburg done ?

32. Budget for 2006 • 90 reimbursements for 2006  one common ‘task force’ • type meeting possible in the end of 2006 • If additional fund available, the order of priority • STSM • Workshops • Training schools (only if huge amounts of fund) • The involvement of all participants extremely important for the goals • How to reach in the case of a limited budget ? • The answer from COST office ? • Our work has already initiated EUROPEAN level process in our field !