Search

National Forest Inventory (NFI) data are the main source of information on forest resources at country and subcountry levels. This chapter explores the strengths and limitations of NFI-derived indicators to assess forest development with respect to adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, that is, the criteria of Climate-Smart Forestry (CSF). We reflect on harmonizing NFI-based indicators across Europe, use literature to scrutinize available indicators to evaluate CSF, and apply them in 1) Switzerland, where CSF is evaluated for NFI records and simulation model projections with four management scenarios; 2) 43 selected European countries, for which the indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) are used. The indicators were aggregated to composite indices for adaptation and mitigation and to an overall CSF rating. The Swiss NFI records showed increased CSF ratings in mountainous regions, where growing stocks increased. Simulations under business-as-usual management led to a positive CSF rating, whereas scenarios of increased harvesting decreased either only adaptation or both mitigation and adaptation. European-level results showed increases in CSF ratings for most countries. Negative adaptation ratings were mostly due to forest damages. We discuss the limitations of the indicator approach, consider the broader context of international greenhouse gas reporting, and conclude with policy recommendations.

A willingness to create precise definitions for terms describing forest resources between the National Forest Inventory (NFIs) data providers and UN international organisations dates back to the late nineties. European NFIs enhanced this harmonisation process by introducing the concepts of (i) reference definitions agreed by consensus but enforcing a more rigorous interpretation of such definitions (ii) bridges that allow for the transformation of national data into comparable data using an associated reference definition. Illustrative examples of some key definitions and case studies for generating comparable data are the core focus of this chapter. Discussions on recent harmonisation processes, including the way of working and a framework for future proposals are given by way of conclusion.

The main objective of COST Action Usewood was to improve and harmonise data and information from National Forest Inventories (NFIs) on the potential supply of wood resources at European level considering the actual extent. This will improve the quality of data available to describe wood resources and possible wood uses. Such high quality information could be used for future scenario modelling and help inform political decision making for the renewable energy sector. The harmonisation of NFIs is based on reference definitions. Four different topics in terms of wood supply are covered and described in this chapter: forest available for wood supply, change estimation, stem quality, other wooded land and trees outside forest. These definitions will enable data comparison between countries and consequently, this will imply a transparent, comprehensive and robust information for decision-making.

The collection of information on the approaches of wood resources assessment was essential to provide background details necessary to meet the objectives of COST Action Usewood. This chapter describes the processes that were used by COST Action Usewood to review the wood resource assessment methods used in NFI’s and gives an insight into the differences and similarities of definitions and methods applied by European NFIs. To address the specific objectives of COST Action Usewood, the activities of WG1 were organised into four sub-groups that would comprehensively describe the assessment of wood resources. The four sub-groups dealt with the topics of; Forest Available for Wood Supply, Stem Quality, Change Estimation and Other Wooded Land and Trees Outside Forest. The information provided through questionnaires and country reports provided the raw materials required to understand the differences between the definitions and components that make up the definitions that are applied nationally by the various NFIs. Results from the four sub-groups are presented outlining the diversity and similarities among the assessment of wood resources between countries.