Denmark's National Inventory Report 2005 - Submitted under the ...
Denmark's National Inventory Report 2005 - Submitted under the ...
Denmark's National Inventory Report 2005 - Submitted under the ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
data in detail when <strong>the</strong> first results from <strong>the</strong> new sample-based <strong>National</strong> Forest <strong>Inventory</strong> are<br />
available in 2007.<br />
So far, <strong>the</strong> design of <strong>the</strong> presently used Danish Forestry Census has not made it possible to quantitatively<br />
address uncertainty of inventory data used to estimate <strong>the</strong> reported sink for CO 2 in Danish<br />
forests. The uncertainty of <strong>the</strong> volume and increment estimates in <strong>the</strong> Forestry Census 1990 and<br />
2000 are related to a number of issues: The values of site productivity refer to fully stocked stands<br />
with no border effects and with a given thinning regime. However, a number of <strong>the</strong>se issues are<br />
uncertain. The stands are not fully stocked as <strong>the</strong> estimates are based on a 90% stocking but it may<br />
be lower. The very fragmented shape of <strong>the</strong> Danish forest area results in many borders and hence a<br />
reduction in <strong>the</strong> actual productivity on <strong>the</strong> area as a whole. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> yield table functions<br />
are based on a certain frequency of thinning, which in turn affect <strong>the</strong> standing volume. With <strong>the</strong><br />
changing conditions for <strong>the</strong> forestry sector, <strong>the</strong>se prescriptions are not followed, which in turn may<br />
lead to deviations, both positive and negative, from <strong>the</strong> estimated volume and increment. Fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
details and alternative estimates can be found in Johannsen (2002) and Dralle et al. (2002).<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r factors also contribute to uncertainty of <strong>the</strong> reported sinks. As previously mentioned, <strong>the</strong><br />
lack of national biomass expansion factors or better expansion functions makes <strong>the</strong> calculation step<br />
from biomass to total biomass <strong>the</strong> most critical in terms of uncertainty. Basic densities of wood<br />
from different tree species are better documented and <strong>the</strong> C concentration is probably <strong>the</strong> least<br />
variable parameter in <strong>the</strong> calculations.<br />
In recognition of <strong>the</strong> difficulties in analyses of uncertainty, <strong>the</strong> estimated uptake of CO 2 in <strong>the</strong> forestry<br />
sector must be treated with caution. However, <strong>the</strong> assessment of uncertainty will improve<br />
significantly from 2007 when <strong>the</strong> new <strong>National</strong> Forest <strong>Inventory</strong> can supply <strong>the</strong> first national estimate<br />
of stocks of wood, increment and harvest based on a design with permanent sampling plots<br />
and partial replacement. The new design will enable an assessment of uncertainty related to inventory<br />
data.<br />
7.2.3.2 Time-series consistency<br />
The forest area in 1990 and 2000 was not <strong>the</strong> same for forests existing before 1990 (411,000 and<br />
440,000 ha, respectively). This is due to <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> Forestry Census, i.e. <strong>the</strong>re were different<br />
numbers of respondents in 1990 and 2000. We acknowledge <strong>the</strong> comment by <strong>the</strong> ERT for NIR 2004<br />
on <strong>the</strong> complications caused by different numbers of respondents in <strong>the</strong> Forestry Census 1990 and<br />
2000. The difference in gross uptake of CO between 1990-1999 and 2000-2003 is almost solely due<br />
2<br />
to <strong>the</strong> difference in numbers of respondents to <strong>the</strong> questionnaire (i.e. forest area) as annual gross<br />
increment per ha was similar for <strong>the</strong> two periods. However, as mentioned below (Section 7.2.6), we<br />
prefer to avoid recalculations of <strong>the</strong> present data based on <strong>the</strong> Forestry Census due to <strong>the</strong> coming<br />
large revision of <strong>the</strong> reported data brought on by <strong>the</strong> new <strong>National</strong> Forest <strong>Inventory</strong>.<br />
In addition to this coming revision, we are currently considering to initiate work on a reconstruction<br />
of <strong>the</strong> land use matrix from 1990 (databases, remote sensing data and aerial photos). This is<br />
necessary in order to be able to apply <strong>the</strong> same forest definition (FAO-TBFRA) in 1990 as that used<br />
in <strong>the</strong> commitment period.<br />
7.2.4 QA/QC and verification<br />
QA for <strong>the</strong> area of existing forests is carried out by Statistics Denmark, and QA for afforestation<br />
area is mainly carried out by <strong>the</strong> Danish Forest and Nature Agency, as this organisation is responsible<br />
for <strong>the</strong> administration of subsidies. Harvesting data to support estimates of emissions from<br />
forests existing before 1990 are derived from Statistics Denmark. The QA of harvesting data is<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore placed <strong>under</strong> QA within Statistics Denmark. Spreadsheets are in secure files at Danish<br />
Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning.<br />
174