Skip to main content.

8 International Review of the CMS Development

8.1 Terms of reference

In late 1999 an international review of the CMS was held, with particular emphasis on soils and forest and scrub components

The terms of reference of the review were to:

  1. assess and comment on the robustness, scientific and technical merits and credibility of the approach and systems being developed and proposed by the research providers;

  2. assess and comment on the overall consistency, compatibility and practicability of the approaches being proposed, keeping in mind the project's overall goal of a single national framework for monitoring C, and changes in C over time, as the basis for New Zealand's international reporting on land-use change and forestry and the FCCC;

  3. identify and assess any gaps, issues and possible improvements that should be addressed in future work, including priorities and suggestions for possible approaches to address and resolve identified issues;

  4. assess and comment on the robustness and versatility of the proposed approaches as a basis for monitoring other key indicators or parameters relating to sustainable forest management and land use, forest health and condition, and biodiversity; and

  5. provide clear conclusions and recommendations for future development of the framework and national monitoring system.

8.2 Members of the review panel

  • Dr Margriet Theron (chairperson), Dean of the Faculty of Forest and Technology at Waiariki Institute of Technology, Rotorua.

  • Dr Sandra Brown, Senior Programme Officer, Forest Carbon Monitoring, at Winrock International, Oregon.

  • Dr Colin O'Loughlin, a forestry consultant from Christchurch.

  • Dr Keith Paustian, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University, Colorado.

  • Dr Andy Whitmore, Silsoe Research Institute, England.

8.3 Main conclusions (Theron et al. 1999)

The main conclusions of the review panel were:

  1. Good progress has been made towards the development of a working CMS, but a lack of integration between the forest and soils programme has created potential problems.

  2. The conceptual approach for monitoring soil C is a significant improvement on the IPCC methodology, but much work remains to be done to estimate and validate appropriate COCs should be a priority.

  3. The conceptual approach for monitoring C stocks in vegetation is heading in the right direction.  The use of a fixed grid and PSPs to estimate the C in the identified major C pools is sound and according to international practice, but the development of temporal COCs should be a priority.

  4. For forests, the use of limited data for developing allometric relationships in live and dead vegetation remains a major problem.

  5. The monitoring system needs a good, well-documented QA/QC system to lend it international credibility,

  6. Accurate estimates of land-use change over time are fundamental to the CMS for indigenous forests, scrub and soils.  The link between future land-use change and new sampling and data collection need to be further developed and integrated between the two programmes.

  7. The approach in the forests programme appears to be more focussed on changes within the existing extent of forests and scrublands, and insufficient attention has been paid to the impact of future changes in land use and cover on the data collection strategy.  The conceptual approach for the soils programme focuses more on the effects of changes in land use and insufficient attention has been paid to potential carbon stock changes in existing "stable" soil/climate/land-use classes.
    The overall programme has done a credible job of integrating existing data to arrive at an acceptable circa 1990 estimate of carbon stocks in indigenous vegetation and soils.

  8. For a long-term monitoring programme, the retention and maintenance of research capacity is of concern.  The programme is currently vulnerable to the loss of individual scientists.

  9. The international credibility of the research underpinning the development of the monitoring system would be enhanced by further publication in peer reviewed literature, for both forests and soils.

  10. On-going and assured funding for the CMP, and especially funding to enhance the programme in the ways recommended by the review panel, are of concern.  More co-ordination among research providers and stakeholders will help to ensure optimum application of scarce resources.

  11. The national CMS has the potential to provide a foundation for supporting other monitoring and research programmes, from local through to national level.

8.4 Priority list of recommendations

The review panel's recommendations, taken from earlier chapters of this report, are repeated below.  The recommendations have been grouped and prioritised.

Table 1 Recommendations of highest importance and highest priority for implementation

Recommendations of highest importance and highest priority for implementation
Financial aspects
  1. The management and funding of the CMS should be adjusted to enable continuity of research effort, and earlier assurance of funding for each financial year.
  2. An accurate estimate of all costs (fixed and variable) of the monitoring system options should be made as soon as possible.
Spatial Aspects (LCDB etc)
  1. It is critical that the classification developed for the next iteration of LCDB meets the needs of both the soils and the forest and scrub inventories, as well as other stakeholders where possible. 

Acquisition of a ground-receiving facility, which has apparently been discussed repeatedly in the past, should be seriously (re)considered to insure maximum data availability and timeliness.
Field Sampling / Monitoring
  1. A method for estimating C stocks and their changes at varying levels of desired precision in different LC/LU classes, and the implications for cost, need to be addressed.
  2. Explicit evidence should be provided that the researchers have given consideration to monitoring disturbance effects, how important these effects are to C stocks, how their plan addresses this or what additional data need to be collected to incorporate this into the plan.
  3. Researchers should identify areas where active tree harvesting in indigenous forests is taking place, and spend time there destructively harvesting and measuring, using standard techniques, a selection of trees to obtain the necessary biomass data for the development of allometric equations.

  4. The ongoing monitoring system should address which LU/LC classes and C pools need to be monitored, over what time frames and at what scales.

    1. Opportunities to leverage the additional costs of more widespread soil sampling through collaboration with other programmes such as soil quality investigations, should be pursued.  After a full remeasurement period, the data would be invaluable as a validation of the soil C change estimated based on COC.
    2. Provisions need to be made, with explicit plans, to account for the recruitment of new forest and scrub areas (e.g., via pasture abandonment) as part of the grid-based forest and scrub monitoring procedures.
Quality Assurance Aspects
  1. A QA/QC plan should be developed for future implementation, and all field, laboratory, and analytical techniques should be coordinated among the various research teams, to add credibility to the CMS.
  2. A/QC procedures should be defined and implemented, including field sampling, sample preparation (sub-sampling, grinding), and C analysis (analytical standards, blind checks).
Land Use Changes
  1. Existing land-use statistics should be explored as an auxiliary source of information on historical land use change (i.e. land-use history) in relation to the soil C monitoring programme.
  2. Efforts should be made to establish benchmark sites, particularly for land-use types that are expected to undergo significant changes, e.g., abandonment of pastures.  One option that might be explored is to locate very recently abandoned lands as potential benchmark sites.
Meeting the needs of stakeholders
  1. The future monitoring programme needs to find a balance between the needs for C and the needs for other environmental variables – all stakeholders should develop a minimum list of needs.
  2. loser communication and cooperation between the CMS researchers and DOC regarding forest, scrub and soil monitoring could enhance the contribution of the CMS to the development of environmental performance indicators.

 

 

[ |