EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics
Unit E2: Environmental statistics and accounts; sustainable
development
Draft minutes/2016WG
Only available in EN
Forestry Statistics and Accounts
Working Group
Draft minutes of the Working Group meeting of 26 October 2016
BECH building, Luxembourg
5, rue Alphonse Weicker
[(]
Delegates are invited to bring copies of the documents provided on CIRCABC. All documents will be available in English only.*
1. Welcome and introduction; adoption of the agenda
Arturo de la FUENTE NUñO, Deputy Head of Eurostat's unit E2, opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. He reported on the staff changes, namely that Edoardo PIZZOLI's secondment from ISTAT ended (the vacancy notice has been published) and that Monika WOZOWCZYK is the new team leader for monetary environmental accounts, including forestry statistics, forest accounts and biodiversity. The fact that this working group (WG) had only one meeting day available was due to the reduction in the number of Commission meeting rooms in Luxembourg. Eurostat would endeavour to have a two-day meeting next time.
The draft agenda was adopted with the addition of an extra agenda point 5.2.1 proposed by Eurostat on preparations for the 2017 review of the JFSQ. Related to this, the chair drew attention to a table document, which is a letter from UNECE/FAO asking the countries to contribute to the Harmonised System (HS) 2022 review process.
One country remarked that the point on current and future requirements for forestry data that this WG always had in the past been useful, as it had kept the delegates up-to-date on the political developments in other Commission departments.
2. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting
The draft minutes of the 2015 Working Group (WG) were approved without changes.
3. Work programme 2017 for forestry statistics and accounts
Eurostat presented the draft 2017 work programme approved by the ESSC but not yet adopted by the Commission (this will happen at the end of 2016). Forestry statistics and accounts have been merged into a single module. Other related modules shown were Biodiversity indicators and Climate change statistics.
There were no comments from the delegates.
4. Mandate for the present Working Group
Eurostat presented the new mandate adopted by the Directors’ Group on sectoral environmental statistics and accounts (DIMESA) at its meeting of 11-12 October 2016.
A previous draft was circulated to correspondents on 1 August 2016 with a deadline in mid-September; comments were received from FI, EL, UK, DE, AT, NL and HR. Following this, there was some fine-tuning at Eurostat to give forest accounts less prominence, as requested by some countries, and to harmonise the text with the mandates of other working groups. The present WG remains in charge of forest accounts. The frequency of meetings was reduced to once every two years to limit Eurostat's work load, but there could be more frequent meetings if necessary, e.g. if a particular project needed an impulse.
One country objected to biennial meetings because data collection needs change and must be adapted and because forests are important for climate change issues. Another said that the present WG should also report to the Directors' Group on Agricultural Statistics (DGAS) and the Standing Forestry Committee.
The chair said there could be unofficial reports to DGAS, because each WG should only have one master (it would have been too complicated to have more than one). Eurostat would do its best to have a higher frequency of meetings.
5. The Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (JFSQ) 2015 – Procedure
Eurostat reported on its new, streamlined data processing in Q4 of 2016, the use of EU-28 aggregates from PRODCOM, and preparations for the 2017 review of the JFSQ.
5.1 JFSQ 2015 reception process, completeness of data and co-operation with UNECE
Eurostat presented slides on the timeline of data reception, based on the day the last version was received from each country (the final deadline was 8 OCT 2016). Data were received from 25 countries, so Eurostat was still missing 7 countries on the date of the present meeting. The number of worksheets completed in each submission was quite good; the overall result looks better than last year. This was presented using colour codes for the degree of completeness of each worksheet. The validation process will begin soon. Countries are welcome to send in new versions even after the deadline. Data exchange and forwarding to the UNECE went smoothly as of June 2016.
One country commented that the main problem for data dissemination is still the high number of confidential (empty) cells. Eurostat replied that this is the reason why it intends to use PRODCOM data as much as possible for its publications, to reduce its work on estimates that cannot be published.
5.2 Using EU-28 aggregates from PRODCOM for the JFSQ
Eurostat presented slides and a document about the PRODCOM products selected for the validation and publication of the 2014 and 2015 data reported in 2016. EU-aggregates from PRODCOM according to NACE Rev. 2 begin in 2008, while time series from the JFSQ begin in 1992. Eurostat will use 18 of 43 products in the JFSQ worksheet JQ1 to compare the EU-28 aggregate results between PRODCOM and the same aggregates as obtained from the bottom-up summing up of the corresponding JFSQ product. This will only be possible for those products with a good fit of the underlying Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes that form the basis of each data collection.
Since this is the first time Eurostat will use PRODCOM aggregates, both the aggregates produced from the JFSQ reporting by bottom-up addition and the PRODCOM aggregates will be carefully compared. PRODCOM aggregates will not be automatically used. Whenever differences can be explained in terms of under-reporting or integrated production, Eurostat will tend to use the larger number. Where sub-items are affected, the resulting totals will be compared as well.
Apart from this, Eurostat will consider further measures to improve the quality of the data published at EU level. The allocation of CN-codes to the JFSQ and to PRODCOM will be re-checked, also in view of the review of the JFSQ scheduled for 2017. EU-28 data from PRODCOM will be flagged as a break in the time series in Eurostat's database.
In their comments, some delegates indicated that they are not aware of how PRODCOM statistics are collected and compiled by their national statistical institute (NSI), highlighting possible quality issues in PRODCOM figures, notably the reporting of products that are not manufactured in the country (e.g. veneers), double-counting of certain products (e.g. plywood and laminated plywood). Some delegates never use PRODCOM, although others find it useful, at least for certain products. There seems to be a lack of communication between the NSI and the experts in some countries, while others regularly use PRODCOM. The NSIs will not communicate confidential data to the experts filling in the JFSQ, but Eurostat said they should contacts the NSIs to exchange views about the magnitude of production of confidential products they are aware of, thus improving both PRODCOM and JFSQ data. One country said the two data producers should work together at national level and continue to communicate and study the reasons for differences. Another said that an alternative to PRODCOM aggregates could be to use the aggregated EU data from European industrial associations, who are offering their data. Some Member States supported this proposal.
In conclusion, Eurostat encouraged the delegates to establish working relations with their NSI in charge of compiling PRODCOM data to discuss possible conceptual differences and review the quality of data reported in both datasets, so that the results would be better aligned over time. Eurostat pointed out that these data were important for the accuracy of the estimates of carbon contained in harvested wood products according to LULUCF Decision 529/2013/EU, reminding the delegates that under-reporting in the JFSQ would lead to under-reporting of the LULUCF figures.
5.2.1 Preparing for the JFSQ's 2017 review
In 2018, new HS codes will be available for 2017 data and therefore, a comprehensive review of the JFSQ has been envisaged for 2017. Discussions began in March 2016 at UNECE. Eurostat presented a set of questions to the delegates in a document and in a presentation, covering possible
· Additions to JFSQ removals from the forest (branches and stumps, green forest chips) and JFSQ products (recovered wood) and
· Simplifications of certain JFSQ products (plywood, chemical wood pulp, graphic papers and packaging materials)
The delegates provided the following comments:
· It would be difficult to separate branches, stumps and green forest chips. One country already includes green chips under the product "chips and particles", while most countries include green chips and small branches in the fuelwood category
· Recovered wood data should come from Eurostat's statistics on waste
· Tropical plywood should be maintained, as this is needed for the Timber Regulation
Eurostat reminded the delegates that the Belgian pulping industry uses branches, not stem wood; delegates from Nordic countries responded that stem wood is certainly used for pulp. UNECE said the branches have to be de-barked first; the bark itself is significant for wood energy. UNECE said that green chips can also come from sawmills and that it was not relevant where chips are made, in the forest or elsewhere. One country responded that if branches and stumps are input for green chips, there would be double counting if forest chips are reported separately as part of "removals" in the first part of the JFSQ.
Eurostat will prepare an electronic survey in November 2016 to co-ordinate an EU contribution, to be sent to all delegates, JFSQ correspondents and European industrial associations.
5.3 Review of JFSQ trade methodology for Ireland (Correction of physical quantities in Ireland's trade data)
Ireland presented the methods developed in 2016 to check and correct the physical quantities reported in the JFSQ. A forestry statistics liaison group was created comprising the Department of Agriculture (DoE, in charge of JFSQ reporting), the Central Statistics Office's Environment Division (CSO) and invited experts
The DoE had been using SICT SITC trade data from the CSO in the past, applying conversion factors for all trade data required in cubic metres in the JFSQ.
In the project, the CSO recalculated the figures, making more use of detailed information in the CSO trade statistics by using monthly data from identified traders and CN trade codes. The quality of the net mass figures is generally better than the quality of the supplementary unit figures, but not all CN codes require a supplementary unit figure to be submitted by the trader. Because the CSO used individual trader records, it was able to calculate individual trader conversion factors (m3/tonne) and compare them with existing conversion factors (JFSQ, UK JFSQ and DoE). Using these actual trade data, reference conversion factors were determined after examining median and average conversion factors in the actual trade data, currently used DoE conversion factors, JFSQ guideline factors and UK conversion factors.
As a result, a mixed approach was applied:
· Conversion factors in actual trade that were within 20% of the reference conversion factor were accepted (the supplementary unit data were used)
· All other data were converted to cubic metres from net mass data, including those where the supplementary unit is not cubic metres.
Ireland also submitted a methodology note with more details of the work done, including a table with the conversion factors the CSO finally used for those records where the actual trade factors were outside the acceptable scope or the supplementary unit was not in cubic metres.
Eurostat commented that this work shows how necessary it is for different offices and experts to work together to make best use of the available administrative data.
6. European Forest Accounts (EFA)
Integrated environmental and economic accounting for forests (IEEAF) is replaced by EFA as a result of the work of the Task Force on reviewing IEEAF (2013-16)
6.1 Draft Final report on the work of the Task Force reviewing IEEAF
Eurostat presented slides summarising the report and the tables for the new EFA data collection, and asked the delegated to adopt both.
The European Commission's Department for agriculture said these data were much needed, in particular those on agro-forestry. Under the new rural development support measures of the Common Agricultural Policy, it was expected that agro-forestry would be established on more than 70 000 ha of land by transforming agricultural land or existing forest area. This was also relevant for climate change issues because there were currently no data available on timber production on agro-forestry areas.
The delegates commented as follows:
· They supported the changes implemented with respect to the pilot questionnaire, noting that EFA was now short and concise, in particular the economic aggregates of the forestry and logging industry (Table B1)
· SE and FI expected the results for Table B1 – former Table 3c – to be comparable between their countries, but found this was not so; after the meeting, they agreed to repeat the exercise as there had just been a major revision of the SE forest accountsdid not research the possible reasons (e.g. methodological Methodological aspects would also be re-visited differences, differences in source data including statistical units, or accounting concepts)
· They proposed to have more analysis and a regular publication on forest accounts similar to the one on agricultural accounts
· They inquired about the uses of the data, including what indicators will they be used for
· They inquired whether land parcel information could be a good source for agro-forestry data
· It was pointed out that more guidance will be needed for all tables, but especially for the valuation of land and timber, beyond that already provided by Eurostat on concepts, definitions and classifications
· There was a question about the scope for adding the ecosystem services of forests
· One delegate said that EFA should provide synergy with LULUCF accounting because thisand that the forum for such discussions would be of interest for the Standing Forestry Committee
In response, Eurostat stated that: