Eurostat Task Force on Forest Economic and Environmental Accounting Minutes of the 8 March 1999 meeting

Transcription

1 eurostat STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES B1 - National accounts methodology, statistics for own resources ACCT-ENV/99/7.3.1a Background document Item of the agenda Luxembourg, August 1999 Task Force on Forest Economic and Environmental Accounting Minutes of the 8 March 1999 meeting B1 Joint meeting of the Working Party ECONOMIC ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT and the Working Group STATISTICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Meeting of 16 and 17 September 1999 BECH building Room Quételet

2 Minutes of the meeting of the Task Force on Forest Economic and Environmental Accounting of 8 March 1999 Introduction The chairman (Mr. Steurer) welcomed the participants and presented the agenda. 1. Recent developments (for information) 1.1 Manual for Forest Economic and Environmental Accounting The Task Force was informed that would publish the Forest Accounting Framework later in (Note: the official title of that publication will be The European Framework for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting for Forests ). Based on the conclusions of the April 1998 Task Force meeting some changes have been introduced in the set of proposed tables, mainly as concerns the classification of forests. In particular, the classification of forest available for wood supply has been amended as agreed by the Task Force. Two categories of forest available for wood supply are distinguished: regularly managed and over-mature by X years. The criterion of over-maturity is a way of operationalising the distinction between cultivated and not cultivated forest, as foreseen in ESA/SNA. The Task Force discussed whether the classification as agreed by the Task Force can be interpreted as cultivated/not cultivated in the ESA/SNA sense so that e.g. balance sheets in monetary terms can be drawn up based on the Forest Accounting Framework. The Task Force concluded that this interpretation is correct and consistent with ESA/SNA. In order to determine whether the exact definition of over-maturity can be left to countries or needs to be harmonised, it was agreed to investigate the effect of the X (i.e. over-mature by e.g. 10, 20, 30 years) on the value of forests. Current assumption by Sweden and Finland is that a variation of the X would have a very small effect on the total value of forests because forest that is only slightly over-mature is rare. Mr Wolf (Sweden) noted that the separation of forestry and logging in tables 4, 6 and 8 of the Forest Accounting Framework is unclear. His interpretation was that in table 4 this separation refers to a more functional distinction. Because forestry is an integrated industry this means separating secondary and ancillary activities. Such a separation does not make much sense in the context of the supply and use tables 6 and 8, and the distinction between forestry and logging should be omitted there. 1.2 Results of the pilot applications The Task Force was informed that would publish the results of the first set of pilot exercises. A draft of the pilot applications publication was circulated. A second 1

3 publication with the results of the second set of pilot exercises could be envisaged in months. 1.3 Second set of pilot exercises Austria, Finland, France and Germany presented the main results of their pilot exercises. The Austrian presentation by Mr Sekot focused on the results of testing five alternative valuation methods for valuing stocks of standing timber. These methods included valuation with a) stumpage price (i.e. road-side pick-up prices minus costs of felling) by assortments, b) an average stumpage price applied to the total volume of standing timber, c) by assortment based on individual sample trees, d) by age classes using proportionality factors and e) by discounting net revenues of the final cut and subtracting the management costs till maturity. The different methods generate rather similar monetary values of stocks of standing timber. The valuation of natural growth and fellings was done based on current market prices (roadside pick up prices minus costs of felling) for all five methods. A zero interest rate was used for method 5 (net present value - NPV) and this method generated both the highest and the lowest value of forests over the 5 years under consideration. Mr Wolf noted that in Sweden the NPV method s results were about one third of the results of the stumpage price method. Mr Sekot (Austria) defended the use of a zero interest rate saying this had been empirically derived from the development of forest real estate prices over time. Mr. Muukkonen (Finland) presented preliminary results from an ongoing study on valuation of protected forests. A lot of different data (by region and type of protected area) and methods to value protected forest are being investigated. This includes actual market values in the form of data on compensations paid by government for the protection of land. Results show that about 50% of total compensations paid refer to the value of standing timber, another 50% to losses of building rights. Management cost data referring to protected forests are also available. The classification of protected areas fits quite well with the IUCN-classification which makes valuation by IUCN class possible. Willingness to pay studies show high variations and are generally difficult to use. Detailed data on real estate transactions are available but the data needed for the hedonic price function method (separate identification of transactions in forest real estates, data on age of trees, species, proximity to markets, etc.) are not available. Mrs Tessier (France) also presented preliminary results of an ongoing study on valuation of forests. Different variants of the stumpage price method have been used by dividing timber stocks and natural growth into species and diameter classes and valuing these categories separately. The French NPV results were very high although a discount rate of 1-2% was used. The different methods result in differences in values that appear to be more important than in the Austrian study. 2

4 France is also working on a regionalisation of the forest accounts. Regionalisation would take factors such as differences in climate, geography, species composition, accessibility to stands, etc. into account when valuing the standing timber. The French presentation also addressed the issue of excluding the highest diameter classes from the valuation of standing timber, as they may never be cut. Cut-off diameter classes by species could also be another operational criterion to separate forest regularly managed and forest over-mature. The conclusion of the presentations of the different valuation methods was that at this stage the various test exercises seem to produce non-converging results and that further analysis and discussion will be needed based on the final results of the second round of pilot exercises. The Task Force discussed again the issue of a best valuation method. As argued by Mr. Wolf (Sweden), the hedonic price function method based on actual transactions was considered to be the theoretically most satisfactory method but also the most work intensive one because it involves data that are not readily available. Hence, the Task Force recommends starting with a simple method and work towards refinements later. Mr. Gutow and Mr Bergen (Germany) presented the results of the study on economic accounts for forestry which includes a distinction of public and private ownership. The results imply that public forestry, according to ESA 84 methods, runs a huge negative NOS with public producers in fact being non-market, whereas the NOS for private forestry is positive. The participants were asked about the profitability of the forestry sectors in their countries. Most countries thought that their public forestry was profitable, and often as profitable as private forestry (in Sweden, Finland and Austria public forest is exploited by companies that are owned by government and that generate profits). In Sweden and Finland, public forest is relatively unimportant (5-7% of total forest). In Austria about 50% of forest is publicly owned. In France, much of the forest that is protected or used for recreation is public forest. Although profitable, public forestry profitability is lower than private. Mr Wolf (Sweden) pointed out that in private forestry the compensation of employees per unit of output might be lower due to mixed income, which could explain part of the difference between public and private forestry. envisages another task-force meeting in September 1999 to discuss several issues related to valuation. Discussion will be based on the final results of the second set of pilot exercises. Issues will be public/private ownership, data requirements for each method, rates of discount for the NPV method, the minimum level of detail (diameter classes, species details, etc.) needed for a solid application of the simplified stumpage price method and the question of prices to be used (e.g. averages). 3

5 1.4 SEEA revision Mr. Kolttola (Finland) informed the Task Force about the on-going revision of the SEEA and in particular about the state of work on chapter 2 (asset accounts). This chapter covers physical and monetary accounts for various natural assets including forests. The work of the Forest Accounting Task Force is a very important input to this work. will inform the Task Force once the chapter 2 draft is open to public comment. 1.5 The Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment 2000 Mr. Mikkola ( F1) informed the Task Force about the present state of the work on the TBFRA will use the terms and definitions of TBFRA 2000 as a reference for Forestry Statistics. The reference period for the TBFRA is ten years (in theory but countries responses tend to differ from this). The replies to the TBFRA 2000 questionnaire are currently being analysed. 2. Non-ESA/SNA functions and values of forests 2.1 Physical description of non-esa/sna functions of forests The Task Force generally considered the list of functions and the set of proposed tables on non-esa/sna forest functions useful. The links to the tables of the Forest Accounting Framework should be made clear. The participants provided detailed comments and concluded that the tables need to be revised in line with the detailed comments and remarks received before they can be tested. Mr. Kolttola (Finland) suggested doing all accounts annually because the forest inventories do not provide data for any fixed point in time anyway. The participants were asked to test the proposed set of tables once revised. Finland volunteered to test the revised set of tables on non-esa/sna forest functions. Sweden, Austria, and Germany also showed interest. 2.2 Monetary valuation of non-esa/sna functions of forests The Task Force decided that a special meeting of a sub-group of the Task Force should be organised before the summer to discuss the monetary valuation of non- ESA/SNA functions. 4

6 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS - FOREST TASK FORCE Luxembourg, 8 March 1999 Pays Mr Nom Prénom Titre-Société Adresse Tél-Fax D Mr. BERGEN V. Institüt für Forstökonomie der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen D Mr GUTOW Sven Universität Göttingen Institut für Forstökonomie D Mr. SCHRÖDER H. Universität Göttingen Institut für Forstökonomie Buesgenweg, 5 D GÖTTINGEN Germany Buesgenweg, 5 D GÖTTINGEN Germany Buesgenweg, 5 D GÖTTINGEN Germany FR Mr DESAULTY Daniel I.F.E.N. 61, Boulevard Alexandre Martin F ORLEANS CEDEX 1 France FR Mrs TESSIER Aude ENGREF Dynamique des systèmes forestiers A Mr SEKOT Walter Institut für Sozioökonomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Universität für Bodenkultur 14, Rue Girardet (CS 4216) F NANCY CEDEX France Gregor Mendel-Strasse, 33 A WIEN Austria FIN Mr KOLTTOLA Leo Statistics Finland Box 6B FIN STATISTICS FINLAND FIN Mr MUUKKONEN Jukka Statistics Finland FIN STATISTICS FINLAND S Mrs ERIKSSON Marianne Statistics Sweden PO Box S STOCKHOLM Sweden S Mr. WOLF Michael Statistics Sweden PO Box S STOCKHOLM Sweden T-* F-* vbergen@ufobi6.uni-forst.gwdg.de T-* F-* sgutow@ufobi6.uni-forst.gwdg.de T-* F-* hschro@ufobi6.uni-forst.gwdg.de T-* /94 F-* /60 Daniel.desaulty@ifen.fr T-* (standard) F-* tessier@engref.fr T-* F-* h440t8@edv1.boku.ac.at T-* F-* leo.kolttola@stat.fi T-* F-* Jukka.muukkonen@stat.fi T-* F-* marianne.eriksson@scb.se T-* F-* Michael.wolf@scb.se 5

7 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS - FOREST TASK FORCE Luxembourg, 8 March 1999 Pays Mr Nom Prénom Titre-Société Adresse Tél-Fax B1 Mr NEWSON Brian European Commission B1 Mr. STEURER Anton European Commission B1 Mrs MØLLGAARD Elisabeth European Commission BECH E3/832 BECH E3/822 BECH E3/824 FR Mr GIE Gérard PLANISTAT 80, Rue du Faubourg Saint- Denis F PARIS L Mr NORDIN Anders PLANISTAT Luxembourg Rue Alphonse Weicker, 4 L-2014 LUXEMBOURG F1 Mr MIKKOLA Eero European Commission BECH B2/455 T-* F-* brian.newson@eurostat.cec.be T-* F-* anton.steurer@eurostat.cec.be T-* F-* elisabeth.mollgaard@eurostat.cec.be T-* F-* gerard.gie@planistat.fr T-* F-* anders.nordin@planistat.lu T-* F-* Eero.mikkola@eurostat.cec.be 6