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

2. 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

3. Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Output

4. Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Intermediate consumption

5. Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Consumption of fixed capital

6. Coherence with national accounts: Table B1 Compensation of employees

7. Coherence of employment: Table B1 AWU vs LFS

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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?

13. Thank you for your attention!