Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inaugural meeting of the
UNECE/FAO Team of Specialist (Tos) on Monitoring of Sustainable Forest Management Geneva, 25‐27 February 2009
European Forest Types: a proposal for a new MCPFE Forest Types classification
Marco MarchettiUniversity of Molise and
Italian Academy of Forest Sciences Italy
In most European countries plot‐based
NFIs (or forest management plans) are
the main data sources for assessing
indicators of forest condition, e.g.
MCPFE indicators:
Growing stock
Age structure and/or diameter
distribution
Tree species composition
Deadwood
…
MCPFE REPORTINGMCPFE REPORTING
ConiferousConiferous BroadleavedBroadleaved MixedMixed
See also: Cullotta and Marchetti, European Journal of Forest Research, 2007
Present: forest reporting under MCPFE
Source: Quézel & Médail, 2003
Alpine coniferous forests
Mediterranean coniferous forests
1 (average) value for coniferous forests, does it make sense,
especially for some indicators?
Thermophilous deciduous portuguese oak
Broadleaved evergreen cork oak
Eucalyptus plantation
Scots pine native pinewood
Sitka spruce plantation
UK
Portugal
1 figure for forests of native species and exotic species is it informative?
European Forest Types 14 classes reflecting variation in the main ecological and
anthropogenic variables affecting forest condition, including biodiversity, across Europe
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_9/en
The 14 categories serve as a framework for assessing in a more relevant and precise way the state and pressures on the European forest ecosystems and actions needed
Cf. EEA, 2007. European forests ‐Forest conditions and sustainable use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
14 Top level classes (CATEGORIES)14 Top level classes (CATEGORIES)REPORTING REPORTING
76 low level classes (TYPES) 76 low level classes (TYPES)
NFIs plots ICP plots National forest maps classes
Classification keys
14. Plantations and self‐sown exotic forest
1. Boreal forest2. Hemiboreal and nemoral coniferous and mixed
broadleaved‐coniferous forest 3. Alpine coniferous forest 4. Acidophilous oak and oak‐birch forest5. Mesophytic deciduous forest 6. Beech forest 7. Moutainous beech forest 8. Thermophilous deciduous forest9. Broadleaved evergreen forest10. Coniferous forests of the Mediterranean,
Anatolian and Macaronesian regions11. Mire and swamp forest12. Floodplain forest13. Non‐riverine alder, birch or aspen forest
13 classesof forestdominated bynative tree species
14 Categories14 Categories
Forest plantations sensu MCPFE and ‘novel’forest ecosystems
• Categories are defined by a unique interplay of forest ecological conditions and anthropogenic influences that ‘drive’ the MCPFE indicators variation along a characteristic pattern; a pattern that distinguishes each category from the others
• Categories enable a comparison of ecologically similar forests and they are understandable and comprehensive units for reporting information on forest condition at Pan‐European level
Category and types: nomenclatureCategory and types: nomenclature
TYPE TYPE inner stratification of each category reflecting its inner variability due to changes in forest building species, floristic region and/or structural types
Classification keys
• The European Forest Types are provided with a classification key allowing a cross‐link of national forest data (e.g. NFIsplots, classes of forest maps) to categories and types, based on:
– simple ecological information (biogeographic region, water regime, site edaphic condition)
– forest dominant tree species
Dominant species Dominant species is defined as the broadleaved deciduous species accounting is defined as the broadleaved deciduous species accounting for >50% of the basal areafor >50% of the basal area of the (NFIs) plotof the (NFIs) plot
This does not exclude the use of other feasible approachesto classify NFIs plots at country level!
Identification of dominant species
… for example in Italy• The forest vegetation classes applied in the Italian NFI (INFC) to qualitatively classify ground plots at the second inventory phase are easily and directly comparable to EUFTs(1:1 relationship)
• Quantitative data collected on INFC ground plots at the third inventory phase allow a straightforward assignment of the each plot to EUFTs
Technical Workshop “Sharing experiences on pan-European forest
classification”Copenhagen, Denmark, 24-25 November, 2008
Conclusions and Recommendations• Following experiences after Bled, 2007, participating experts recommended MCPFE ELM to adopt the proposed 14 main categories of the European Forest Types as the standard for the seven MCPFE indicators which require reporting ‘by forest type’
• a stepwise approach towards implementation was recommended as well as the introduction of improvements to ensure operationality to the EFT classification
Major Improvements reccommended:
• Inclusion of additional missing types (‘Fir forest’, ‘Invasive alien tree species’) or shift of existing types under different category (‘Boreal birch forest’ is best suited to be reported under Category 3 ‘Alpine coniferous forest’)
• Operational approaches to reclassify to EFTs at national level should allow for embedment into existing reporting routines
• Species dominance and assignment to an EFT main category could be depicted through basal area (or its equivalents where information on basal area is not available) using single species or species groups as described in the nomenclature
Last not least: the tricky category 14
• it was raised as major point of revision the clarification of the content of the category ‘14 Plantations and self sown exotic forest’. Category 14 Plantations was introduced for forest largely managed for production or protection and where ecological stability prevails over naturalness. Experiences when testing the EFT ‐ and in reporting of MCPFE indicator 4.3. Naturalness ‐ show that several countries have difficulties to identify plantations.
Currently category 14 covers the following cases:
• 1. intensively managed stands established by planting or seeding in the process of afforestation/reforestation that meet the following criteria: one or two species, even aged, regular spacing, systematic thinning regimes; these can be of species native to Europe or exotic.
• 2. self‐sown exotic forest
Why we get into troubles when assessing forest plantations ?
Situation 1. intensively managed stands established by planting or seeding in the process of afforestation/reforestation of native and exotic species
1. It refers to forest plantations sensu strictu as defined by MCPFE under the indicator 4.3 ‘naturalness’, but the borderline between semi‐natural and planted forest was not seen clearly understandable by countries
2. in a number of countries currently applied forestry systems rely on artificial forest regeneration which originates stands with a plantation‐like structure; this situation can be common also for stands of native broadleaved deciduous species (e.g. beech forest originated by natural regeneration)
3. 3. Forest plantations under this heading are a subset (only afforestationand reforestation are covered) of the broader domain ‘planted forest’with native or exotic species; these ‘planted forests’ have a relatively high share of total forest area, especially in some countries of Northern and Central Europe
Suggested modification of the class 14
• To overcome this difficulties and concerns from countries that would report a relatively high share of class 14 under the present system, the following modification of the category 14 is suggested:
• 14. Forest of exotic tree species
• Under this class will be assessed and reported both forest plantations and self‐sown forest dominated by exotic tree species
• Any other forest being planted or naturally regenerated and dominated by tree species which are native to Europe will be assigned to 1‐13 categories, based on tree species composition and biogeographical region etc.
Implications of this modification on MCPFE reporting
• under the same category will be mixed forest areas which can be very dissimilar from an ecological and biodiversity standpoint: e.g. a Scots pine plantation for commercial forestry in the boreal region will be assigned to the same category of a boreal coniferous old growth forest
• this modification would weak in some cases the ecological stratification introduced at the category level
• Therefore, to make more clear the real category content new types can be introduced for each category to distinguish, where possible, planted or artificially regenerated forest of native tree species from other cases
• this would help maintaining an internal consistency to the EUFTs system as a whole
European Forest Types: a proposal for a new MCPFE Forest Types classification
introduction to the group work
UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management, 25-27 February 2009
Work Groups
Group 1 – Northern Europe (UK, IRE, NO, FIN, …)
Group 2 – Western Europe (GER, AUT, …)
Group 3 – Central Europe (POL, CZ, SK, LIT, …)
Group 4 – Southern Europe (ITA, HR, BL, …)
UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management, 25-27 February 2009
Work Groups – expectations1. Proposal for changes in the new
classification on the European Forest Types (Cat. 14)?
2. Proposal for reporting by forest types in the MCPFE reporting – how to apply new forest types in the next report?
3. Recommendation for JWP and ELM on the readiness of the new classification for the endorsement by the MCPFE.
4. Next steps on the new classification?
UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management, 25-27 February 2009
Work Groups – method of work
Questionnaire on the application of European Forest Types
I. General aspects of the new forest types classification (countries that not participated)
II. Information on “forest type” indicators feasibility
III. Views on Future Reporting
UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management, 25-27 February 2009
European Forest Types Category 14 ‘Plantations’
• The European Forest Type EFT classification builds on potential natural vegetation with further development to suit SFM assessment . We suggest to renaming to EFT Category 14 ’Introduced tree species’ comprising forests dominated by introduced tree species in line with the MCPFE indicator 4.4. Introduced tree species.
• Definition of ’Plantation forest’ is proposed to be clarified in the context of the MCPFE indicator 4.3 Naturalness
European Environment Agency
