European Forest Accounts – Quality of the results for 2014 and 2015 Marilise Wolf-Crowther, E.2 WG Forestry 20-21 FEB 2018

Data checking by Eurostat: coherence with other statistics Table B1 with national accounts aggregates Table B1 with employment data from the Labour Force Survey Table B1 applying ESA 2010 rules by reporting net increment as output of forest trees (also for internal coherence) Tables A2 & C1 with roundwood removals from the Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire Table A2 with timber prices published by UNECE Coherence within the EFA questionnaire Consistency between tables A2 & C1 for roundwood removals over bark

Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Output

Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Intermediate consumption

Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Consumption of fixed capital

Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Compensation of employees

Coherence of employment: Table B1 AWU vs LFS

Conclusions on national accounts aggregates and annual work units For Portugal and Sweden, EFA aggregates well aligned with national accounts For other countries, no clear patterns emerge concerning the use of national accounts aggregates for EFA Consistency varies across countries, variables and over time AWU expected to be lower than employment from LFS, but Germany, France, Romania AWU aligned with LFS data Greece, Austria, Sweden, Norway AWU data > LFS data Bulgaria, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Poland, UK, Switzerland < LFS

Coherence within the EFA questionnaire Output of cultivated forests (~ Forest available for wood supply): Table B1 output of forest trees must be = or > value of NAI in Table A2 Lower in Germany (2014), Luxembourg (2014), and Poland If there is a NAI for FAWS in Table A2, it must also be recorded in Table B1 Prices of FAWS land appear high in Bulgaria and Austria No consistency of timber removals between EFA tables in France

Coherence with other statistics JFSQ removals with C1 total national supply of wood in the rough: Coherent in France, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovenia EFA has much higher removals in Germany EFA has much lower removals in Slovakia

Coherence of removals within EFA - Tables A2 and C1 JFSQ removals with A2 removals and C1 total supply of wood in the rough: Coherent in Lithuania and Slovenia EFA A2 much lower removals in France (only FAWS available) and inconsistent with C2 (supply)

Proposals for improvement 1) Correspondents could try to increase interest and support for EFA by contacting potential users in their country. 2) Correspondents should work in close collaboration with the national accountants in their country. 3) Could correspondents investigate after the meeting all questions and quality problems raised in the document that cannot be explained in the WG discussion? 4) Could countries integrate checks of coherence with related statistical domains into their regular data production process, to validate and assure quality of EFA estimates?

Thank you for your attention!