1. Stein M. Tomter MCPFE 2007 Enquiry – quantitative indicators: results and lessons learned

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