A new proposal for the MCPFE Forest Types classification

1. A newproposalfor the MCPFE ForestTypesclassification Feasibility and issues of country reporting Marco Marchetti Italian Academy of Forest Sciences EcoGeoFor– Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Geomatics, University of Molise, Italy

2. European forest area =1004 million ha if we don’t take into account the variabilityin natural conditions and anthropogenic influencesaffecting MCPFE indicators Can we correctly evaluate the state of European forests?

3. Today MCPFE reporting: in a country with high ecological diversity… reporting data by BROADLEAVED FOREST makes somewhat fruitless the effort in collecting and processing data on growing stock, tree specie composition, deadwood! deciduous+evergreen forest together no consideration of ecological differences between forest communities (mesophytic/thermophilous/mediterranean sclerophyllous)

4. The European forest types - Categories and types for sustainable forest management reporting and policy: Product of an international consortium lead by the Italian Academy of Forest Sciences under EEA contract http://www.eea.europa.eu/

5. European Forest Types = 14 classes of European forests growing under relatively homogeneous ecological conditions (climatic, edaphic) and levels of anthropogenic modification Applications: 1. possible future reportingof the 7 foresttypesbased MCPFE indicators 2. forestmonitoring, withparticularreferenceto large scale forestbiodiversityassessments

6. 14 Top level classes for the MCPFE reporting (CATEGORIES) Classification scheme 76 low level classes (TYPES) to describe and document the variety of forest communities that each category comprises Types are intended to stratify national forest data, the 14 categories for data evaluation and international reporting

7. Boreal forest • Hemiboreal and nemoral coniferous and mixed broadleaved-coniferous forest • Alpine coniferous forest • Acidophilous oak and oak-birch forest • Mesophytic deciduous forest • Beech forest • Montainous beech forest • Thermophilous deciduous forest • Broadleaved evergreen forest • Coniferous forests of the Mediterranean, Anatolian and Macaronesian regions • Mire and swamp forest • Floodplain forest • Non-riverine alder, birch or aspen forest 13 classes of forest dominated by native tree species 14 Categories Higher naturalness Important breaking point of naturalness 14. Plantations and self-sown exotic forest Lowest naturalness COVERAGE: forest land as defined in FAO (2004)

8. 76 Types

9. CATEGORIES 1-13 delineation: - changes of ecological forest zones influencing the natural tree-species composition, the length of the growing season (i.e. growing stock), decomposition rate and natural disturbance regimes (i.e deadwood type and amount) - variation in management systems

10. simplification of forest structure (monospecific, regularly tree spacing) relevant modification in site species composition, when the native vegetation is replaced by forest stands predominantly consisting of non-native (or non-indigenous, exotic, introduced) trees Cat. 14 -Plantations and self-sown exotic forest (plantedforest – plantations & planted/seeded component of semi-natural - in the newly proposed FRA reporting tables from Kotka V ?!):

11. Estimated number of categories per countries, based on a preliminary assessment on ICP level I plots the increased reporting effort is seemingly moderate: the shift will be from the current 3 classes to, on average, 6 reporting categories per country

12. Classification keys The European Forest Types are provided with a classification key allowing a systematic cross-link (post-stratification) of national forest data (e.g. NFIs, forest management plans) to categories and types, based on: simple ecological information (biogeographic region, water regime, site edaphic condition) forest dominant tree species (as resulting from NFIs plots dbh data)

14. Nomenclature The classification key is integrated by a nomenclature, a descriptive frame to characterise categories and types, that includes: the definition of the category the geographical distribution of the category Types descriptions Types are also referenced to: Eunis III level classes EU Habitats Directive Annex I (92/43/EEC)

15. Example of type description

17. Feasibility of the scheme Cross-linking country data to European Forest Types

18. Data from a questionnarie circulated within 20 European countries Countries without forest types scheme in NFIs Countries with forest types scheme in NFIs Countries not covered by the questionnarie COST action E43 Harmonisation of National Forest Inventories in Europe: tecniques for common reporting

19. Mostof the Europeancountriesincluded in the surveydeclarethey can easily link NFIs data toEuropeanForestTypes A numberofcountries (Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Ireland) volunteeredtoclassifyNFIsraw data (plots) byEuropeanForestTypes Resultswillbedeliveredto the COST ACTION byjune 2007

20. A second way to cross-link NFIs field plots to EFTs are Label to label bridging functions applicable and convenient in the countries having already NFIs forest types schemes to stratify ground plots, provided that: such classifications are grounded on same diagnostic criteria as the European forest types (e.g. actual forest vegetation, forest tree species composition, site ecological conditions, etc)

21. Label to label bridging function: Italy Cross-reference at the type level 76 second level classes (TYPES) Italian NFIs forest types 20 classes of semi-natural forests grounded on forest physiognomy; 3 classes corresponding to forest plantations

22. European Forest Types nomenclature + key STRATIFICATION OF NFIs plots by categories ITALIAN NFI FOREST TYPES EUROPEAN FOREST TYPES by field survey plots are assigned to NFI forest types dominant species & basic ecological information

23. ITALIAN NFI FOREST TYPES EUROPEAN FOREST TYPES ITALY = 11 categories

24. Label to label bridging function: Slovenia classification of forest vegetation communities BASED ON FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS DATA

26. The way ahead: MCPFE reporting The European Forest Types have been presented and discussed in the MCPFE Workshop on “Pan-European understanding of forest classification” (November 2006, Bled Slovenia) The system was recognized as scientifically sound and bridging functions developed in Italy/Slovenia were regarded as proofs of the feasibility of the scheme at country level: no additional data collection is required to link avalaible dbs to European Forest Types

27. Reccomendations from the MCPFE Workshop To present the proposed 14 main Categories of the ‘European Forest Types’ for consideration and if possible for adoption by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting (5-6 June 2007) as the standard for the seven MCPFE indicators which require reporting ‘by forest type’ Actions (training at a regional level, development of tools to cross-references national forest type classifications to the proposed pan-European scheme) are needed in order to strengthen capacity and to facilitate implementation in many countries The case-studies (Italy, Slovenia) showed that most of the data needed to classify forests into the Forest Types are readily available in most countries, however, it was recommended that more case-studies would be valuable (cf. in this direction goes the COST ACTION test)

28. Finalremark Experts concluded that some additional forest types would be useful in some categories when validation at a national level suggested such a need and that for certain forest types some definitions need more clarification and should be redefined: e.g. the Slovenian evaluation showed the need of a ‘silver fir forest’ type Category 14, Plantations and self sown exotic forest; this category would need further elaboration, e.g. by adding types to separate highly managed plantations of non-native species from more ‘naturalized’ plantations, which may host more natural biodiversity (e.g. Piceasitkensis old plantations in UK) Beforeaccomodatingnewtypesinto the scheme, wouldnotbebettertowaitfor a first round ofapplicationof the scheme at EU level (tohave a betteroverviewofnewtypesneeded at EU level)? The questionisnottoagree on a classificationfullyreflecting the varietyofforestcondition at countrylevel (44 countries!) but at the pan-Europeanone! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION