Information gap analysis of the Slovenian forest inventory data in the light of MCPFE requirements

V okviru evropskega procesa MCPFE se stanje gozdov in trajnost gospodarjenja znjimi preverja na podlagi stanja ter sprememb šestih Helsinških meril in podrejenih kazalnikov trajnostnega gospodarjenja. Opredelili smo razhajanja - informacijske vrzeli - med informacijskimi zahtevami količinskih kazalnikov MCPFE in razpoložljivimi podatki gozdne inventure. Vrzeli smo opredelili na podlagi sedmih kakovostnih meril. Največji informacijski vrzeli smo z vidika podajanja stanja kazalnikov opredelili v okviru 3., z vidika sprememb pa 4. Helsinškega merila. Glavna vzroka za to sta, da gozdna inventura ne daje nikakršnih podatkov za dva kazalnika 3. in en kazalnik 4. Helsinškega merila, ter dejstvo, da podatki velikokrat obstajajo le za eno obdobje. Vrzelim botrujejo tudi neusklajenost definicij, prostorska nepopolnost podatkov in nepreglednost metodologij. Za zmanjšanje informacijskih vrzeli bi bilo treba vsisteme zbiranja podatkov vpeljati nove znake (npr. gozdni tipi, enodobni/raznodobni sestoji, tipi obnove), postopki bi morali temeljiti na jasnih statističnih načelih, ki jih je treba dokumentirati.Within the framework of the European MCPFE process, the state of forests and forest management is assessed on the basis of the state and changes of six Helsinki criteria and subordinated sustainable management indicators. We have identified gaps - information gaps - between information requirements of quantitative MCPFE indicators and available forest inventory data. Gaps were identified according to seven quality criteria. The biggest information gaps were identified in the 3rd - state of indicators - and in the 4th Helsinki criteria - changes of indicators. The main reasons for this lie in the fact that forest inventory does not offer any data for two indicators of the 3rd and one indicator of the 4th Helsinki criteria, and the fact that in many cases data exist only for a single period. Definitions that are not harmonized, spatial incompleteness of data and lack of clarity in methodologies also contribute to these gaps. To reduce information gaps, new forest characteristic indicators should be introduced in data obtaining protocols (e.g. forest types, even-/uneven-aged stands, types of regeneration), processes should be based on clear statistical principles, which have to be documented