Harmonised projections of future forest resources in Europe

Abstract

• Key message A dataset of forest resource projections in 23 European countries to 2040 has been prepared for forestrelated policy analysis and decision-making. Due to applying harmonised definitions, while maintaining country-specific forestry practices, the projections should be usable from national to international levels. The dataset can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4t880qh. The associated metadata are available at https://metadata-afs.nancy.inra.fr/ geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/8f93e0d6-b524-43bd-bdb8-621ad5ae6fa9.

Initial forest age distribution may generate computational sinks or sources of carbon: A generic approach to test assumptions underlying the EU LULUCF forest reference levels

“…For our exercise, the EFDM was selected as the modeling tool mainly for its flexible open-source implementation. However, according to a test that involved NFIs of 20 European countries [ 8 ], the EFDM is a viable option for international modelling exercises. Even if not demonstrated specifically for the FRL computation, projections that consistently up-/downscale between country and European levels were prepared based on harmonized definitions, assumptions, and modelling methodology, while maintaining country-specific forestry practices [ 8 ].…”

“…However, according to a test that involved NFIs of 20 European countries [ 8 ], the EFDM is a viable option for international modelling exercises. Even if not demonstrated specifically for the FRL computation, projections that consistently up-/downscale between country and European levels were prepared based on harmonized definitions, assumptions, and modelling methodology, while maintaining country-specific forestry practices [ 8 ]. On the other hand, by varying these assumptions to account for the related uncertainty [ 6 , 17 ], it is possible to analyze an interval of possible future outcomes as basis for forward-looking FRLs.…”

“…The EU member states differ in terms of forest characteristics, forestry practices, quality of forest inventory data, and modeling experience [ 5 ] that results to applying various methods and reduced comparability of the FRL proposals [ 2 ]. According to text above, many different projection models were used for studying the fundamentals of the FRL principles, even though such assessments would benefit from harmonized definitions and standardized modeling (cf., [ 8 ]). According to an assessment of the FRLs submitted by altogether 28 member states [ 9 ], the CBM model was attributed as the forest projection approach of three member states, while the remainder used disparate models and altogether 8 approaches categorized as “ ad hoc FRL models” (Table 3 in [ 9 ]).…”

Catering Information Needs from Global to Local Scales—Potential and Challenges with National Forest Inventories

“…The European forestry dynamics model (EFDM; [88]) that was developed to simulate forest development based on data from European NFIs was parameterized to include even-aged [88], uneven-aged [89] and, combining multiple Markov chain models, any-aged forest management [83]. In DIABOLO, the EFDM was used for the projections of 20 countries following the method described by [83] to adapt the EFDM to the forest structure prevailing and the management applied in each country [90]. The results obtained from this test were considered comparable between country groups such as those corresponding to [86] or at the European level due to the harmonized definitions, assumptions, and modelling methodology applied.…”

“…However, because of maintaining country-specific forestry practices, the results retain the forestry characteristics typical to the initial countries. Further studies should consider a potential risk of over-harmonizing (see [90]). As the sustainability constraints for forest use differ between countries in Europe, their full harmonization would make sense only if the forestry policy across Europe was also harmonized.…”