Skip to main content

National Forest Inventories: Prospects for Harmonised International Reporting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
National Forest Inventories

Abstract

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).

For reporting to the UNFCCC, estimates for carbon pools are to be reported separately for different carbon pools and within pools for lands whose land use category has remained unchanged and for lands whose land use category has changed (IPCC 2003). European countries participating in COST Action E43 report estimates by the same carbon pools as the USA, although estimates for individual carbon pools are obtained by aggregating estimates for different constituent components (McRoberts et al. 2009b). Estimation by unchanged and changed land use categories requires techniques for distinguishing between the two classes. Among COST Action E43 countries, 70% use sampling techniques alone or in combination with other techniques for this purpose, 32% use map analyses alone or in combination with other techniques, and 18% use both sampling techniques and map analyses (Cienciala et al. 2008). For estimating carbon stock changes, two approaches are used: estimation based on differences between successive inventories, characterized as the stock change method, and estimation of biomass increment and removals separately from the inventory, characterized as the default method. Among COST Action E43 countries, the two approaches are used in approximately equal proportions. As an example, estimates for the deadwood component are obtained by 74% of countries using ground measurements whereas 37% of countries use predictive models.

The U.S. Government’s right to retain a non-exclusive, royalty-free licence in and to any copyright is acknowledged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barbati A, Corona P, Marchetti M (2007) A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: the case of European forest types. Plant Biosyst 141:93–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cienciala E, Tomppo E, Snorrason A, Broadmeadow M, Colin A, Dunger K, Exnerova Z, Lasserre B, Petersson H, Priwitzer T, Sanchez G, Ståhl G (2008) Preparing emission reporting from forests: use of national forest inventories in European countries. Silva Fennica 42(1):73–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2008) What is forest biological diversity? http://www.cbd.int/forest/what.shtml. Cited 10 Dec 2008

  • Dunger K, Petersson H, Barreiro S, Cienciala E, Colin A, Hylen G, Kusar G, Oehmichen K, Tomppo E, Tuomainen T, Ståhl G (2009) Harmonising greenhouse-gas reporting from forests – case examples from Europe. For Sci (in review)

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2006) European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management reporting and policy. Technical report 9/2006. European Environmental Agency. 111 p

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2004) Global Forest Resources Assessment Update 2005. Terms and definitions (final version) Forest Resources Assessment Programme Working Paper 83/E Rome, 2004 Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 34 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabler K, Schadauer K, Tomppo E, Vidal C, Bonhomme C, McRoberts RE (2009) An enquiry on Forest areas reported to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 – Harmonisation needed? For Sci (in review)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gschwantner T, Schadauer K, Vidal C, Lanz A, Tomppo E, di Cosmo L, Robert N, Englert Duursma D, Lawrence M (2009) Common tree definitions for national forest inventories in Europe. Silva Fennica 43(2):303–321

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. In: Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F (eds) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan. ISBN 4-88788-003-0. http://www.ipc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.htm. Cited April 2008

  • Köhl M, Traub B, Päivinen R (2000) Harmonization and standardization in multi-national environmental statistics – mission impossible? Environ Monit Assess 63:361–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts RE, Winter S, Chirici G, Hauk E, Pelz DR, Moser WK, Hatfield MA (2008) Large-scale spatial patterns of forest structural diversity. Can J For Res 38:429–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts RE, Winter S, Chirici G, LaPoint E (2009a) Harmonizing assessments of forest naturalness. For Sci (in review)

    Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts RE, Tomppo E, Schadauer K, Vidal C, Ståhl G, Chirici G, Lanz A, Cienciala E, Winter S, Smith WB (2009b) Harmonization of national forest inventories. J For 107:179–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (2008) Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. http://www.mcpfe.org/. Cited 10 Dec 2008

  • Montréal Process (1998) Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. The Montreal Process, Montreal: http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/. Cited Sept 2008

  • Pommerening A (2002) Approaches to quantifying forest structure. Forestry 75:305–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl G, Cienciala E, Chirici G, Lanz A, Vidal C, Winter S, McRoberts R E, Rondeux J, Schadauer K, Tomppo E (2009a) Bridging national and reference definitions for harmonising forest statistics. For Sci (in review)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl G, Allard A, Esseen P-A, Glimskär A, Ringvall A, Svensson J, Sundquist, S, Christensen P, Gallegos- Torell Å, Högström M, Lagerqvist K, Marklund L, Nilsson B, Inghe O (2009b) The national inventory of landscapes in Sweden: scope, design and experiences from establishing a multi-scale biodiversity monitoring system (in review)

    Google Scholar 

  • Varga P, Chen HYH, Klinka K (2005) Tree-size diversity between single- and mixed-species in three forest types in western Canada. Can J For Res 35:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal C, Lanz A, Tomppo E, Schadauer K, Gschwantner T, di Cosmo L, Robert N (2008) Establishing forest inventory reference definitions for forest and growing stock: a study towards common reporting. Silva Fennica 42(2):247–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter S, Chirici G, McRoberts RE, Hauk E, Tomppo E (2008) Possibilities for harmonizing national forest inventory data for use in forest biodiversity assessments. Forestry 81(1):33–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald E. McRoberts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McRoberts, R.E. et al. (2010). National Forest Inventories: Prospects for Harmonised International Reporting. In: Tomppo, E., Gschwantner, T., Lawrence, M., McRoberts, R. (eds) National Forest Inventories. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3233-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics