Use of Wood Fibre Balance

History and Background 2008 Workshop on National Wood Resources Balance (http://www.unece.org/forests/workshops/2008/wood-balance/conclusions1) A number of studies, in particular in Germany Increasing discussions in Team of Specialists meeting and encouragement to apply in routine validation of JFSQ December 2017 ECE/FAO workshop on Wood Resources and Product balances which looked at FRA and JFSQ balances over 2000-2015.

Sources of Information The source for data on the wood fibre balance is the ECE/FAO TIMBER database. These are the same figures as shown in FAOSTAT. The data are mostly provided through the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire. Other figures come from official and unofficial sources, including secretariat estimates. These estimates (and repeated data) are marked in yellow on the country data sheets in the balance.

Balance tool Features of the wood fibre balance Uses official data Tries to keep it simple Ignores energy wood both in supply and demand Uses solid wood equivalent Assumptions are made explicit and can be modified directly by user

Using tool in JFSQ (1) Has been used informally in data validation of JFSQ, not provided to correspondents Since 2012 by ECE, now shared with other IWG partners Compares two years which is rather «tight» Only occasional feedback, designed more to inform about tool than highlight problem No requests to adjust data based on results

Using tool in JFSQ (2)

Workshop Balance tool – basic structure

Workshop Balance tool – assumptions and conversion factors

Workshop summary of results (1) Summary of overall balance (million m3)

Workshop summary of results (2)

Workshop summary of results (3)

Average of results

Results from workshop discussion (1) Overall view is the balance is useful and helps correspondents. More time is needed to absorb the balance and why there are differences. A better explanation of solid-wood equivalent vs round-wood equivalent is needed. No publication of results needed, increase communication with correspondents

Results from workshop discussion (2) Endorsed use of tool in reviewing JFSQ data. Most participants liked simplicity of solid-wood equivalent. Some preferred round-wood equivalent. This would be a different model. Appreciate “total” approach of balance. Some problems with a “non-standardized” structure. Trade in chips, sourced from fuelwood, exported for energy, are being counted against industrial roundwood and causes gaps in balance. Enable assumptions to change over years when we are showing a lengthy period. See report of meeting for more conclusions http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=47616

Thank you! Alex McCusker Forestry and Timber Section alex.mccusker@unece.org UNECE/FAO 21 February 2018, Luxembourg