National forestry accounting plan for Norway EFTA LULUCF EG - 2nd - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
national forestry accounting plan for norway
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

National forestry accounting plan for Norway EFTA LULUCF EG - 2nd - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 07, 2023 259 likes •700 views

National forestry accounting plan for Norway EFTA LULUCF EG - 2nd meeting 20 April 2020 General introduction Data sources Climate change Dynamic age-related characteristics Stochasticity Cost (related to strata

slide-1
SLIDE 1

EFTA LULUCF EG - 2nd meeting 20 April 2020

National forestry accounting plan for Norway

  • General introduction
  • Data sources
  • Climate change
  • Dynamic age-related characteristics
  • Stochasticity
  • Cost (related to strata definition)
  • Harvest intensities
  • HWP
  • Natural disturbances
  • Assumptions
slide-2
SLIDE 2

General introduction

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Data driven approach

The main data source of GHGI for managed forest is the NFI Forecast the development of the NFI, and apply the same methods and definitions of the GHGI

  • 1. Stratification
  • 2. Forest management practices
  • 3. Management intensities in the RF
  • 4. Simulation of development (growth, mortality,

ingrowth, regeneration, other harvest and management)

  • f NFI plots
slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 1. Stratification

Stratification is based on:

  • Main species (based on NFI data)
  • Site index (based on NFI data)
  • Cost (Granhus et al. 2011)

Stratification during the simulation We used the stratification of the last NFI of the RP. The stratum assign to a plot does not change during simulation Stratification at the RP Is assessed at each remeasurement using NFI data Cost same for each plot during the simulation and during the RP

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • 1. Stratification

OBJECTIVE: dividing the managed forest into strata with homogenous management activities.

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • 1. Stratification
slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 2. Forest management practices
  • Felling forest management practices

are defined according to the most common management practices in the different strata.

  • Regeneration numbers are based on

surveys.

  • Other felling (e.g. unplanned) are

not part of the FMP, but are included as part of the simulation Clearcuts 88% of the biomass is removed (NFI data from the RP) Thinnings32% of the biomass (NFI data from the RP)

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • 3. Management intensities in the RP

Maturity was defined for each SI and species, as 20 years before the maturity according to the NFI definitions of forest development (Figure 1 of FNAP)

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 4. Simulation of development (growth,

mortality, ingrowth, regeneration, other harvest and management) of NFI plots

IMPUTATION Variables tree level imputation DBH Size SI Site quality SBA Competition BAL Social status Latitude DBH BAL SI SBA LAT fate BA inc VOL inc 64 12 17 12.5 58.12 alive 111 46 67 12 17 12.5 58.12 alive 58 17 57 12 17 12.5 58.12 alive 40 12 175 17 17 19.9 58.282 alive 40 28 245 10 17 19.9 58.282 alive 101 123 251 8 17 19.9 58.282 alive 78

  • 17

193 16 17 19.9 58.282 alive 38 16 151 18 17 19.9 58.282 cut 81 19 17 19.9 58.282 alive 2 138 18 17 19.9 58.282 dead 183 26 23 29.3 58.282 alive 33

  • 179

NFI DATA FROM RP

DBH BAL SI SBA LAT 94 22 17 46 58.253 96 21 17 46 58.253 100 20 17 46 58.253 134 13 17 46 58.253

SIMULATED DATA

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 4. Simulation of development (growth,

mortality, ingrowth, regeneration, other harvest and management) of NFI plots

Management

  • Final felling
  • Thinning
  • Other harvest

imputation

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • 4. Simulation of development (harvest

and management) of NFI plots

Harvest

Calculate area per strata and maturity class Select plots to be harvested

Area for the stratum and maturity class

Calculate area to be harvested per strata and maturity class

Area to be harvested

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • 4. Simulation of development (harvest

and management) of NFI plots

Harvest

Rank the plots by harvest probability model Antón-Fernández & Astrup (2012) fitted to RP

  • Age to maturity
  • Volume
  • Distance to road
  • Proportion of species
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Mineral soils and DOM

  • We use the same methodology as in the GHGI
  • No climate change (same as GHGI)
  • Mineral soils and DOM we use Yasso07
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Data sources

slide-15
SLIDE 15

The Norwegian NFI

5-years NFI-cycles 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 GHGI2000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Reference period

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 GHGI 2000 GHGI 2009 Reference period used to define management intensities 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 GHGI 2002 GHGI 2009 MANAGEMENT Reference period used for growth, ingrowth, mortality, and other harvest GROWTH (IMPUTATION)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Data used from the reference period (2000-2009)

  • Data used to calculate management intensity GHGI 2000 to GHGI 2009
  • Data used for imputation (growth, mortality, ingrowth, and other harvest)
  • GHGI 2002 (2000-2004) until GHGI 2009 (2007-2011)
  • All plots and sub-plots that were not final felled or thinned
  • Why did we not used data before 2000?
  • Site index was not measured before year 2000, but estimated by the field crews
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Starting year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GHGI 2009

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Climate change

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Climate change

Climate-sensitive site index models for Norway Antón-Fernández, Clara, Blas Mola-Yudego, Lise Dalsgaard, and Rasmus Astrup. “Climate- Sensitive Site Index Models for Norway.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 46, no. 6 (March 15, 2016): 794–803. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0155.

SI change

Best data available: Rcp 4.5 downscaled to a 1 by 1 km grid for Norway http://www.senorge.no/aboutSeNorge.html?show=on Lussana, Cristian, Ole Einar Tveito, Andreas Dobler, and Ketil Tunheim. “SeNorge_2018, Daily Precipitation, and Temperature Datasets over Norway.” Earth System Science Data 11, no. 4 (October 14, 2019): 1531–

  • 51. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1531-2019.

rcp 4.5

SI model uses the "space for time" substitution approach.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Climate change in Norway

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Climate change effect on SI

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Climate change effect in Mineral soils and

DOM (Yasso)

Climate change was not included on

  • ur simulations with Yasso

Consistency with GHGI

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Dynamic age-related characteristics

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Dynamic age-related forest characteristics

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Dynamic age-related forest characteristics

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Dynamic age-related forest characteristics: Age to deveopment class 5

Here I need a figure showing maturity as defined in the FRL distribution among strata... proving the point that our forest is getting "mature"

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Dynamic age-related forest characteristics

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Dynamic age-related forest characteristics

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Stochasticidty

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Stochasticity

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Cost (strata)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Cost used to define strata (Granhus et al. 2011)

Felling and delimbing The harvesting costs per cubic meter calculated according to a methodology described by Granhus et al (2011) and Bergseng (2013). The costs connected to the felling and delimbing operations depends largely

  • n stand density, and the operating system in use, which is dependent on

terrain steepness. Harvesting costs per cubic meter for the terrain classes 1-3 were calculated based on the work of Dale et al. (1993), Omnes (1984) and Lileng (2009), respectively, with machine hour costs assumed to be representative as of 2018. Transport to roadside: For each terrain class (operating system) the costs were calculated using the function of Dale and Stamm (1994). Plots with need of sea transport: An additional transportation cost of NOK100 per cubic meter.

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Cost used to define strata

References: Bergseng, E., Eid, T., Løken, Ø. & Astrup, R. 2013. Harvest residue potential in Norway – A bioeconomic model appraisal. Scand. J. For. Res. 28: 470-480. Dale, Ø., Kjøstelsen, L. & Aamodt, H. E. 1993. Mekaniserte lukkede hogster. In:13 Aamodt, H. E. (Ed.) Flerbruksrettet driftsteknikk. Rapp. Skogforsk 20: 3- 23. Dale, Ø. & Stamm, J. 1994. Grunnlagsdata for kostnadsanalyse av alternative

  • hogstformer. Rapp. Skogforsk 7: 1-37.

Granhus, A., Andreassen, K., Tomter, S., Eriksen, R. & Astrup, R. 2011. Skogressursene langs kysten. Tilgjengelighet, utnyttelse og prognoser for framtidig tilgang. Oppdragsrapport fra Skog og landskap 11: 1-35. Lileng, J. 2009. Avvirkning med hjulgående maskiner i bratt terreng. Oppdragsrapportfra Skog og landskap15: 1-7.

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Harvest intensities

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Harvest intensity

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Thinning intensity

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Harvest wood products (HP)

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Harvested wood products

The projectionHWP for the simulation period are based on a modification of the existing model used in the NIR GHG reporting for calculation of HWP (production approach, Tier 2) using the reference period 2000-2009.

Roundwood from deforestation was excluded from the estimation of the ratios of semi-finite products

Deforestation

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Natural disturbances

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Natural disturbances

  • Included as part of mortality in imputation
  • Natural disturbances were not excluded of the

reference dataset (from RP) of imputation

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Assumptions

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Assumptions concerning 2010-2020 Throughout the full simulation (2010-2100)

  • Areas of each stratum were kept constant
  • FMP were applied consistently
  • HWP was calculated in the same way