ETHIOPIA’S FOREST REFERENCE

LEVEL SUBMISSION TO THE

UNFCCC

March 2017
 2

CONTENTS

1. Contents ........................................................................................ 2

2. Summary: The Proposed FRL ......................................................... 7

3. Introduction .................................................................................. 8

4. Scale .............................................................................................. 9

5. Scope: activities, pools and gases included .................................10

5.1. REDD+ activities in the FRL ............................................................. 10

5.2. Carbon Pools in the FRL................................................................... 11

5.3. Gases in the FRL .............................................................................. 12

5.4. Forest definition .............................................................................. 12

5.5. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation ............................ 14

6. Historical Period .......................................................................... 16

7. The Ethiopian Biomes .................................................................. 17

8. The Activity Data assessment process ......................................... 21

8.1. Ethiopia’s Land Use and Land Cover Map 2013 ................................ 21
Image analysis .................................................................................................21

8.2. The Forest/non forest Map .............................................................. 25

8.3. Forest Change Detection in Ethiopia ................................................ 25

8.4. Step by step Processes of Change detection .................................... 26

Step-1 Training Data Collection and validation .......................................................27
Setp-2 Image classification and post classification editing .......................................28
Step 3 Accuracy assessment and bias-corrected area estimates ...............................32
Comparison of Activity Data results with data from Global Forest Change ..................38

9. Emission Factors: NFI Data Analysis ............................................ 39

9.1. Description of Ethiopia’s Forest and Landscape Inventory .............. 39

 3

Analysis of NFI Data ..........................................................................................43

From Strata to Biomes estimates ........................................................................47
Comparison NFI Results and Secondary Data Sources ............................................52
Results and Proposed Emission Factors.................................................................54

10. Relevant Policies, Plans And Future Changes............................. 58

11. Proposed Forest Reference Level ............................................... 59

11.1. Construction approach and proposed Forest Reference Emission

Level for Deforestation and Forest Reference Level for Afforestation .... 59

12. Updating Frequency ................................................................... 61

13. Future Improvements ................................................................ 62

14. References................................................................................. 63

15. Annex ........................................................................................ 66

15.1. Annex I ......................................................................................... 66

15.2. Annex II ........................................................................................ 67

 

 
 4

List of Tables

Table 1: Biomes description .......................................................................... 23

Table 2: Description of the Land Use/Land Cover Classes .................................. 26

Table 3: Criteria for image acquisition ............................................................ 32

Table 4: Inputs needed for the statistical formula that calculates the number of
overall samples for the accuracy assessment .................................................. 36

Table 5: Samples distributed in the map classes for verification (collection of

reference data) .......................................................................................... 36

Table 6: Error matrix of Ethiopia’s forest change map 2000-2013. ..................... 37

Table 7: Error matrix as proportion of agreement and disagreements by total

number of samples in each map class ............................................................ 38

Table 8: Matrix which gives correct classification, omission (under detection) and
commission (over detection) errors expressed in corresponding map area (ha).... 38

Table 9: Bias-corrected area estimates (thousands of ha) ................................. 39

Table 10: Bias-corrected area estimates by biomes (ha) ................................... 40

Table 11: Description of NFI strata and number of sampling units located in each
stratum ..................................................................................................... 43

Table 12: Tree and other vegetation measurements and observations in NFI. ...... 45

Table 13: IPCC ratios for Below Ground Biomass (2006) ................................... 47

Table 14: Number of SUs accessible and SUs accessible with cover sections
classified as forest per region ....................................................................... 48

Table 15: Number of NFI SU analyzed per Stratum and per Biome ..................... 49

Table 16: Number of SU classified as forest strata included in the EF analysis. ..... 49

Table 17: distribution of the plots per Biome and Ecological Zones: .................... 54

Table 18: IPCC 2006 default AGB values comparison with the Biomes estimates .. 56

 
 5

List of Figures

Figure 1: Extent of the forest cover under the current Ethiopia’s forest definition 19

Figure 2: Land-uses replacing forest over the period 2000-2013 (as % of the total
forest loss over this period) .......................................................................... 21

Figure 3: Potential vegetation map of Ethiopia ................................................ 24

Figure 4: Biomes of Ethiopia......................................................................... 25

Figure 5: High-resolution imagery from Google Earth and user interface from Open
Foris Collect Earth to classify sample data ...................................................... 34

Figure 6: Number of available Landsat archives queried to create a best pixel

mosaic in Google Earth Engine...................................................................... 36

Figure 7: Iterative classification process for change detection. .......................... 37

Figure 8: Map and bias-corrected area estimates of the AD............................... 42

Figure 9: National forest area change detection 2000-2013 by biome. ................ 44

Figure 10: NFI sample unit per stratum ......................................................... 47

Figure 11: Carbon estimated per strata per all the land uses ............................. 53

Figure 12: The average AGB (tC/ha) with their confidence intervals for forest in the
4 biomes is compared between primary (NFI) and secondary (literature and local
studies) ..................................................................................................... 57

Figure 13: NFI results for the average AGB carbon stock per biome in forest ....... 60

Figure 14: NFI results for the average BGB carbon stock per biome in forest ....... 61

Figure 15: NFI results for deadwood carbon stock per biome in forest ................ 61

Figure 16: Emission by Biome. ..................................................................... 64

Figure 17: Reductions per biome................................................................... 65

 
 6

Acronyms

AD Activity Data

AGB above ground biomass

BGB below ground biomass

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research

CSA Central Statistics Authority

DBH diameter at breadth height

EF Emission Factor

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FRL Forest Reference Level

GLWD Global Lakes and Wetlands Database

GHG greenhouse gas

Ht height

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LULC land use/land cover

MEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

MMU minimum mapping unit

NFI national forest inventory

REDD Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

RS remote sensing

SU sampling unit

tCo2 eq ton of carbon dioxide equivalent

UNFCCC United Nations Framework for Conventions on Climate Change

WBISPP Wood Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project

WD wood density
 7

SUMMARY: THE PROPOSED FRL

Ethiopia’s FRL is in the context of receiving results based payments for REDD+
implementation. The FRL includes deforestation and afforestation, AGB, BGB,
deadwood and CO2 emissions; it is national and based on a historical average of
emissions and removals between 2000 and 2013. The Forest Reference Emission
Level for deforestation is: 17,978,735 tCO2 /year; the Forest Reference Level for
afforestation is: 4,789,935 tCO2 /year. The choice of construction approach and
historical period is provisional and may change in the future following appropriate
and comprehensive assessment and national circumstances. In this revised version
of the FRL the estimates have been improved by estimating the emission factors
using countrywide data from the National Forest Inventory and taking into account
the revision of the first submission.
 8

INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia welcomes the invitation to submit a Forest Reference Emission Level (FRL)
on a voluntary basis expressed in Decision 12/CP.17, paragraph 13. This FRL
submission is in the context of results-based payments for the implementation of
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks (REDD+) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).

Ethiopia has followed the guidance provided by the UNFCCC through the decisions
taken at the Conference of the Parties (CP), notably the modalities for forest
reference emission levels and forest reference level in Decision 12/CP.17 and the
guidelines for submissions of information on reference levels in the Annex of
Decision 12/CP.17. The original FRL submission was made in December 2015. This
revised version includes revisions that were already foreseen in the original (e.g.
national-level emission factors from recently completed NFI) and some clarifications
as a consequence of the technical assessment process over the last 8 months. This
submission does not prejudge or modify any of Ethiopia’s Nationally Determined
Contributions or Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions pursuant to the Bali
Action Plan.

Ethiopia intends to take a step-wise approach to its national FRL development as

indicated may be useful in Decision 12/CP.17, paragraph 10. As such, the current
FRL reflects the best available information at the time of submission. Its scope and
methodologies applied may be modified if better data becomes available. The
historical period considered and/or the construction approach may be revised.
 9

SCALE

The Forest Reference Emission Level will cover the national territory of Ethiopia.
Ground inventory data has been collected in the past three years through the
Ethiopia’s National Forest Inventory and wall-to-wall and sample based remote
sensing have been carried out at the national scale. The current submission
therefore uses national activity data and emission factors.
 10

SCOPE: ACTIVITIES, POOLS AND GASES INCLUDED

REDD+ ACTIVITIES IN THE FRL

This FRL will include the REDD+ activities deforestation and afforestation
(enhancement of forest carbon stocks). Deforestation will be defined as the
conversion of forest land to other land. Forest land is defined by the Ethiopian
forest definition (see related section) and any transition below the thresholds in this
definition will be considered as deforestation (including the transition of forest land
to open woodland). Afforestation is defined as the conversion of other land to forest
land. Afforestation includes restoration of degraded shrubs and woodlands resulting
in a transition above the thresholds in the forest definition.

Forest degradation is defined as the loss of carbon stock in forest land remaining
forest land, and forest enhancement is defined as the enrichment of carbon stock in
forest land remaining forest land (or the opposite of forest degradation). These
activities are not accounted for in the FRL.

Though forest degradation in the REDD context is often considered a significant

source of emissions in Ethiopia, due to the lack of accurate, reliable and consistent
data at the national scale, forest degradation is omitted in this FRL. It is Ethiopia’s
intention to gradually account for forest degradation in the future and currently at
local scales different methodologies are being piloted to assess and monitor forest
degradation: the use of dense time series image analysis is being tested at project
scale and the use of proxy data on fuelwood consumption is being explored.
Ethiopia has the desire and intention to develop a robust methodology to assess
forest degradation and exploring whether successful attempts at the local level may
be transferred into a cost-effective accounting mechanism at the national level.

Ethiopia’s efforts on natural forest restoration and the development of plantations

are expected to result in reduction of forest degradation and deforestation. In
Tigray and some parts of Amhara the cultivation of plantation as woodlot on
farmers’ own land has been able to supply most of the fuelwood needed (Ethiopia
REDD+ Secretariat, 2015) which is expected to reduce the pressure on natural
forest.
 11

Displacement of emissions from deforestation to forest degradation is expected to

be minimal. Deforestation is mainly caused by the expansion of agriculture land,
while degradation is mainly driven by collection of fuelwood and charcoal, livestock
grazing, collection of construction wood and illegal logging. Though there is some
overlap between the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (livestock
grazing and wood collection may eventually result in a conversion from forest to
open woodland), the expectation is that when addressing these drivers a positive
effect will be seen both on deforestation and forest degradation.

CARBON POOLS IN THE FRL

The carbon pools included in the FRL will be above ground biomass (AGB), below
ground biomass (BGB), and deadwood. The reason for selecting these pools is that
they are expected to be the most significant pools and primary data has been
collected on these pools through the national forest inventory (NFI). The
methodology applied to collect the litter data in the field only includes the depth of
the litter on the plot. This methodology implies to adopt an ad hoc model to
estimate the carbon content in the litter correctly. This model has not been yet
developed. According to some recent articles, the C fraction contained in litter
consist of less than 0,00% of the total carbon stock (Simegn et al., 2014,
Mikrewongel, 2015, Wolde et al., 2014).

With regard to the soil, this may constitute a very large carbon pool in Ethiopian
forests however, little is known about emissions from soil after forest conversion
and data collection in soils is very costly and needs monitoring over an extended
period. For this reason, the soil carbon pool is not included in the FRL.

Ethiopia does not have a recent soil map, a study (Tekalign et al., 1991) indicates
the Organic Carbon (OC) fraction to be between 0 to 3%. Currently there are no
other extensive and complete studies.

GASES IN THE FRL

The proposed FRL only includes CO2 emissions. Non- CO2 emissions would be
expected from burned areas but since Ethiopia is not systematically collecting data
 12

on the occurrence of fires, data on fire occurrence is not thought to be sufficiently

reliable for inclusion in the FRL. Ethiopia reported a burned forest area of 200 ha in
2003, 800 ha in 2006 and 100 ha in 2008 to FAO’s global Forest Resources
Assessment (FRA) in 2015 (FAO, 2015). To evaluate the significance of non- CO2
gases, a calculation is proposed to estimate the likely range of non- CO2 emissions
by calculating annual non- CO2 emissions for a burned area of 100ha of the lowest
biomass forest (biome 1) and for a burned area of 800ha of the highest biomass
forest (biome 4). Associated non-CO2 emissions are accordingly calculated using
equation 2.27 (IPCC 2006), using default emission factors from Table 2.5 (Tropical
forest) and combustion factor values from Table 2.6 (all secondary forest). This
calculation suggests the contribution of non- CO2 to total forest-related emissions is
in the range of 0.1 – 37.000 t CO2 eq for CO, 0.1 – 33.000 t CO2 eq for CH4 and
3000 – 11.000 t CO2 eq for N2O. Therefore the contribution of non CO2 gases is
estimated to be <2% of total annual emissions from forest land in Ethiopia.

FOREST DEFINITION
In February 2015 Ethiopia adopted a new forest definition (MEF 2015) as follows:
'Land spanning more than 0.5 ha covered by trees (including bamboo) (with a
minimum width of 20m or not more than two‐thirds of its length) attaining a height
of more than 2m and a canopy cover of more than 20% or trees with the potential
to reach these thresholds in situ in due course (Minutes of Forest sector
management, MEFCC, Feb. 2015). Ethiopia is in the process of approving this as its
national legal definition.

This forest definition differs from the definition used for international reporting to
the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) and from the forest definition used
in the NFI which both applied the FAO forest definition with the thresholds of 10%
canopy cover, a 0.5 ha area and a 5 m height.

The reason for changing the national forest definition is to better capture the
natural primary state of Ethiopia’s forest vegetation. Specifically, the reason for
lowering the tree height from 5 meters to 2 meters is to capture natural forest
vegetation types like the dryland forests, which of trees reaching a height of around
 13

2-3 m. The proposed change in forest definition results in the inclusion of what
previously was classified as Ethiopia’s dense woodlands that have a wider
distribution through the country (see Figure 1). Commercial agriculture is
expanding mainly on dense woodlands and Ethiopia desires to enable REDD+
incentives for its conservation.

Figure 1: Extent of the forest cover under the current Ethiopia’s forest

The reason for increasing the canopy cover threshold from 10% to 20% is to avoid
acceptance of highly degraded forest lands into the forest definition and in this way
provide incentives for protecting quality forest.

This forest definition also differs from the definition used for reporting greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and removals from the forestry sector within the framework of
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that was submitted to the UNFCCC
 14

earlier1, which is “A minimum of 0.05 ha of land covered by trees attaining a height

of more than 2m and a canopy cover of more than 20%.‟ The difference is an
increase on area threshold. The main reason for increasing the area in for the FRL
is due the limitation of technology for measurement and monitoring to detect
changes in small areas of forest.

Since Ethiopia has improved the data quality on the forest area change assessment
and changed the forest definition, some inconsistencies currently exist between the
emissions and removals from forestry in the FRL and the GHG inventory. However,
the future GHG inventory reporting in the Biennial Update Report (BUR) will use the
improved data and new forest definition and full consistency will be sought when
reporting results in the technical annex to the BUR.

DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION AND FOREST DEGRADATION

A comprehensive study was published by Ethiopia’s REDD+ secretariat (2015)
analysing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The study found
deforestation and forest degradation to be driven mainly by free livestock grazing,
fodder use and fuelwood collection/charcoal production in all the regions followed
by farmland expansion, land fires and construction wood harvesting. The underlying
causes of deforestation and degradation based on framework analysis were
identified to be population growth, unsecure land tenure and poor law enforcement.

Free grazing affects the plains and lowland woodlands to the largest extent. The
large-scale investment agricultural schemes – both private ones and state owned
ones - have been significant drivers in Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz and Afar
Regional States. In Ethiopian Somali and Afar Regional States charcoal is produced
by almost all rural households as one of the core livelihood income sources.

The findings of this study are confirmed by map comparison of land-use replacing
forest after deforestation assessed by Ethiopia’s National Forest Monitoring System,
described under section 6.2.

1 https://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/cdf/index.html
 15

Land  uses replacing forest land

Bareland

Shrubland

Grassland

Agriculture

Open Woodland

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Figure 2: Land-uses replacing forest over the period 2000-2013 (as % of the total forest
loss over this period)
 16

HISTORICAL PERIOD

The historical period for which forest area change has been assessed is 2000-2013.
This period was selected to assess change because:

 The year 2000 is well covered by standard products (Global Land Surveys
(GLS) and most global products) making it easier to connect or compare to
existing imagery and products

 data for this period is available from the Global Forest Change (GFC) product,
(Hansen et al., 2013), which is used as a comparison and as a base for the
change analysis.

 The period and dates are in line with requirements by FCPF Carbon Fund
Methodological Framework (criterion 11, indicator 11.1 and 11.2)

However, Ethiopia is still exploring whether the emissions and removals over this
period are representative of emissions and removals expected in absence of REDD+
implementation (and thus whether this historical period is appropriate as a
benchmark against which to assess performance). Tree cover loss estimates from
the Global Forest Change (GFC) product in 2013 suggest an upwards trend in tree
cover loss in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is still exploring and evaluating which FRL
methodology and/or choice of historical period best reflects emissions expected in
the near future in absence of REDD+ implementation.
 17

THE ETHIOPIAN BIOMES

A potential vegetation map of Ethiopia has been released by Friis and Sebsebe
(2009) and Friis, Demissew and van Breugel (2010). This map divided the Ethiopian
vegetation into 12 major types, which have been aggregated into 5 biomes.

The vegetation types are based on the information related to previous literature,
field experience of the authors, as well as on an analysis of about 1300 species of
woody plants in the flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The map is based on broad field
surveys, mainly along the country roads, and on a set of classification criteria
defining the altitudinal and rainfall limits for each of the vegetation types. The data
on altitude was obtained from 90x90 meter resolution digital elevation model
provided by the CGIAR-CSI (2008). The monthly total rainfall data with 30 arc
seconds resolution is from WorldClim. The Global Lakes and Wetlands Database
(GLWD) was used to delineate wetlands and lakes, and the AEON river database
(average stream separation of 15 km) was used to define the boundaries of water
bodies and related vegetation types.
 18

Figure 3: Potential vegetation map of Ethiopia

The potential vegetation map has been also used as an input to create the strata
map that is the base layer used to design the national Forest and Landscape
Inventory of Ethiopia.

As the Forest and Landscape Inventory is not focused only on forest strata, during
2015 a new aggregation map was proposed to better represent the reliable carbon
stock estimates. Using the 12 vegetation types as input, these have been
aggregated into 5 biomes following expert judgment by Ethiopian botanical
scientists. Based on their knowledge of the vegetation types and their physiology
they have suggested the following aggregation into four biomes with expected
homogenous carbon contents (Figure 4).
 19

Figure 4: Biomes of Ethiopia

This new stratification has been adopted to estimate the carbon content for the FRL
purposes.
 20

Table 1: Biomes description

Biome Stratum Vegetation types (Friis and Sebsebe 2009)

strata name
1 Acacia- Acacia-Commiphora woodland and bushland (ACB);
Commiphora Acacia wooded grassland (ACB/RV);
Desert and semi-desert scrubland (DSS)

2 Combretum- Combretum-Terminalia woodland and wooded

Terminalia grassland (CTW);
Wooded grassland of the Western Gambela region
(WGG)

3 Dry Dry evergreen Afro-Montane Forest and Grassland

Afromontane complex (DAF)
Afro-Alpine vegetation (AA);
Ericaceous Belt (EB);

4 Moist Moist Evergreen Afro-Montane Forest (MAF);

Afromontane Transitional Rain Forest (TRF)
5 Other
 21

THE ACTIVITY DATA ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The activity data for deforestation and afforestation was assessed as average of
annual forest loss and forest gain in hectares in the period 2000-2013. Satellite
imagery was used in combination with sample data from Google Earth observations
to determine the spatial extent of forest and forest area change. The creation of the
forest and forest area change map is explained under section 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4
(step 1 and 2). Errors in the map are identified through verification of the map
classification by visual interpretation (section 8.4, step 3). Accordingly the map
area estimates are corrected for systematic error (bias) in the map and confidence
intervals are calculated around the bias-corrected area estimates as a measure of
the random error remaining in the estimate after removal of the bias (8.4, step 3).
The results are then compared against the Global Forest Change product and a
possible explanation for differences is provided (section 8.5).

ETHIOPIA’S LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAP 2013

The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change (MEFCC) has created a
map of land use/land cover for the year 2013 using a supervised classification of
Landsat data. The methodology used to create this map is explained in this section.
This map is used to determine the spatial extent of forests in the FRL.

Image analysis
Landsat 8 imagery was acquired from www.glovis.usgs.gov for images with less
than 3% cloud cover data acquisition dates from March 2013 to December 2013.
The land use/land classes were identified and based on past mapping experiences
of the Woody Biomass Inventory Strategic Planning Project (WBISPP, 2004) and the
prevailing ground situation of the country from the forest inventory. Representative
areas of interests (AOIs) were collected for each of the LULC classes using Google
Earth.

Geometric and radiometric corrections were applied to the Landsat images. The
AOIs served as training data and were used to classify the satellite data using the
Maximum Likelihood algorithm. The libraries of radiometric signatures for the
 22

Landsat scenes were iteratively edited to harmonize the scenes. The classified
scene maps were mosaicked to form the thematic land cover/land use map for
Ethiopia.
 23

Table 2: Description of the Land Use/Land Cover Classes

LULC Code LULC Name Description

1 Agriculture Arable and fallow land that grow annual crops (wheat,
maize, sorghum, ‘teff’, Cotton etc) or perennial crops (,
sugar cane, ‘enset’, coffee and permanent fruit trees)
on the small scale or commercial level by rain fed or
irrigation schemes
2 Grassland Land covered with the natural growth of graminea and
herbaceous vegetation or a land sown with introduced
grass and leguminous for the grazing of livestock.

3 Scrubland Low bushes and stunted trees, mostly spiny either

deciduous or evergreen. More than half of the surface
of the ground is bare of vegetation.
4 Shrubland Land with shrubs/bushes canopy cover ≤ 10% or
combined cover of bush, and shrubs ≤10%. Shrubs and
bushes are woody perennial plants, 2 m in height at
maturity in situ.
5 Open Land covered by natural growth of graminea and
Woodland herbaceous vegetation, with some scattered trees (tree
canopy cover less than 3% . it is composed of a canopy
of grass wooded ecosystem of Combretum-Terminalia
and Acacia-Commiphora that can both tolerate burning
and temporary flooding with the tall grass strata, in
case of the former one.

6 Dense A continuous stand of trees with a crown density of

Woodland between 20 - 80%. Mature trees are usually single
storied, although there may be layered under-stories of
immature trees, and of bushes, shrubs and
grasses/forbs. Maximum height of the canopy is
generally not more than 20 meters, although
emergents may exceed this. Dense woodland has more
than 400 stems per hectare, whilst open woodland has
between 150 and 400 stems per hectare.
7 High Forest A relatively continuous cover of trees, which are
evergreen or semi-deciduous, only being leafless for a
short period, and then not simultaneously for all
species. The canopy should preferably have more than
one story." Three categories of high forest is
recognized: Closed: crown cover of the upper stratum
exceeds 80 percent; Dense: crown cover of the upper
strata is between 50 to 80 percent; and Open: crown
 24

LULC Code LULC Name Description

cover of the upper stratum is between 20 to 50 percent.
8 Bareland It is land of limited ability to support life and in which
less than one-third of the area covered by vegetation or
other cover. It may be constituted by bare exposed
rock, Strip mines, quarries and gravel pits. In general,
it is an area of thin soil, sand, or rocks. Vegetation, if
present, is more widely spaced and scrubby than that in
the Shrub and Brush category. Unusual conditions, such
as a heavy rainfall, occasionally result in growth of a
short- lived, more luxuriant plant cover. Wet, non-
vegetated barren lands are included in the Non forested
Wetland category.
9 Builtup Urban or Built-up Land is comprised of areas of
intensive use with much of the land covered by
structures. Included in this category are cities, towns,
villages, strip developments along highways,
transportation, power, and communications facilities,
and areas such as those occupied by mills, shopping
centers, industrial and commercial complexes, and
institutions that may, in some instances, be isolated
from urban areas.
10 Afrolpine This vegetation-type is characterized by small trees,
shrubs and shrubby herbs at higher altitudes, herbs and
tuussock-forming grasses. Typical bushes and shrub
species include Erica arborea, E. trimera and Hypericum
revolutum. Among herbs in this zone are the giant
lobelia Lobelia rhynchopetalum, Kniphofia foliosa,
Bartsia petitiana and various Alchemilla species.
Festuca, Poa and Agrostis spp. are typical grasses.
11 Plantation Broadleaved, conifer or mixed tree species established
through planting and/or deliberate seeding in a
commercial scale or woodlots exceeds 0.5ha,. Includes
coppice from trees that were originally planted or
seeded.
12 Saltpan Dry Salt Flats occurring on the flat-floored bottoms of
interior desert basins which do not qualify as Wetland.
13 Wetland Wetlands are those areas dominated by wetland
herbaceous vegetation or are non-vegetate where the
water table is at, near, or above the land surface for a
significant part of most years. These wetlands include,
brackish and salt marshes and non-vegetated flats and
also freshwater meadows, wet prairies, and open bogs.
14 Bamboo Naturally regenerated/planted forest predominantly
composed of bamboo vegetation, fulfilling the area,
canopy cover and height criteria mentioned at number
 25

LULC Code LULC Name Description

7.
15 Riverine Are forests which fulfill the definition explained in no 7
and grow along with the major river banks and spans
20m to 50m buffer from the river. Predominantly it
consists of common families of Moraceae,
Spidandaceae, mimosaceae etc
16 Water body Area occupied by major rivers of perennial or
intermittent (width ≥ 15m), lakes, ponds and
reservoirs.

THE FOREST/NON FOREST MAP

MEFCC considers high forest, dense woodland, plantation, bamboo and riverine as
the forest classes of the country. The LULCs classes of 2013 map were aggregated
into two broad categories of forest and non-forest classes based on the forest
definition of Ethiopia, forested areas exceeding 0.5ha, height ≥ 2m and canopy
cover ≥ 20%. The overall accuracy of the aggregated map is 81%. The user’s and
producers accuracy for the aggregated forest class is 51% and 56%.

FOREST CHANGE DETECTION IN ETHIOPIA

The activity data for deforestation and afforestation is assessed as average annual
forest loss and average forest gain in hectares in the period 2000-2013.

The proposed approach by Ethiopia follows the GFOI guiding principle 1 for remote
sensing (GFOI, 2014): ‘When mapping forest change, it is generally more accurate
to find change by comparing images as opposed to comparing maps estimated from
images’. The approaches tested for change detection include purely automatic
spectral methods (e.g. IMAD algorithm) and supervised change detection using
change training points/loss and gain (Tewksebury et al. 2015). Post classification
change detection is not a suitable option for Ethiopia because historical land cover
maps do not have sufficient accuracy to derive change. Studies examining post
classification change have shown two forest/non-forest maps can be highly accurate
with user's accuracies of about 95%, the user's accuracy of the deforestation class
in the change map is likely to be much lower, indicating that the forest change
obtained by post-classification is inaccurate (Olofsson, et al., 2013).
 26

The method chosen was a supervised classification of imagery, in which the user
identifies representative spectral samples for each class in the digital image. The
representative spectral samples are used as a dictionary and the classification
algorithm uses this dictionary to classify all objects/pixels depending on what their
spectral signature resembles most in the dictionary. In the case of change
detection, the object to be classified is a multi-temporal stack of imagery, and the
classes are change (loss and gain) or stable.

The imagery chosen for the exercise is Landsat data2, adapted to forest land cover
detection (FAO & JRC, 2012). The process assessed two mosaics for the year 2000
and 2013, to assess the change occurred in this period. For each year, all available
pixels covering a specified area and date range are collected and corrected for sun-
sensor-target anomalies3. A target day is fixed in order to get the maximum
vegetation cover and least cloud cover as possible. The proximity to this target day,
the pixel temperature and pixel wetness are computed to create a best-pixel
mosaic. The two best pixel mosaics (one for each time period) are finally stacked
into a consistent multi-temporal object. All the data collection, correction and
composition are implemented within Google Earth Engine (GEE) API.

STEP BY STEP PROCESSES OF CHANGE DETECTION

The Ethiopian FRL considered two types of land use changes; non-forest land use
change to forest as gain, and forest land use change to the non-forest land use as
loss. Forest area change was corrected for bias using a stratified random sample,
using visually interpreted high temporal and spatial resolution satellite imagery. The
change detection process included:

1. Training data collection and validation;

2. Image classification and post classification editing;
3. Accuracy assessment and bias corrected area estimation.

2 The choice is justified by the fact that the Landsat images covers the entire time period, correspond to
the technical requirements, are consistent with the data used for the forest area map and are freely available and
likely to be sustainably available in the future (GFOI, 2014).

3 http://landsat.usgs.gov/Landsat8_Using_Product.php
 27

Step-1 Training Data Collection and validation

Supervised classification is dependent on the quality of the training sites (Foody

and Mathur, 2006). In the absence of any reliable spatial data to indicate zones of
change at the national level in Ethiopia, preliminary training dataset was generated
automatically from the Global Forest Change product 2013 (GFC, Hansen et al.,
2013). In order to reduce inclusion of potentially false detection in the training
dataset, the GFC product was down-sampled to a 3x3 pixel kernel. The resulting
product was randomly sampled with 300 points for each of the 2 classes (loss and
gain).

Points for loss and gains were carefully assessed through a visual assessment using
a time series of Landsat images and vegetation indices and very high resolution
imagery available in the Google Earth, Bing Maps, and Here maps, all assessed
using the Open Foris Collect Earth interface. Points with a high level of classification
confidence, assigned by the technicians, were used for as the training dataset for
the supervised classification.
 28

Figure 5: High-resolution imagery from Google Earth and user interface from Open Foris
Collect Earth to classify sample data

Setp-2 Image classification and post classification editing

Sets of criteria that assist for the filtering and acquisition of Landsat images such as
date of acquisition, date and year range, month of image acquisition and target day
that controls phenology and cloud cover were set by national experts and
incorporated into Google Earth Engine API (table 3). Based on the selection and
filtering criteria, the collection of relevant Landsat archives were filtered through to
composite a best pixel mosaic.
 29

No Criteria Decisions

1 Path and Row Landsat paths between 162 to 172 and Row between 50 and 58

2 Extent of dates for each Start date for initial period in the year of 1997-01-01 to 2003-
time period ( 2000 to 12-31 and range for the time period two start date 2010-01-01
2013) and 2015-03-31

3 Target day , the time with Start Julian day 330th day of the year/November to end of 60th
least clouds and most day of the year /February
vegetation

4 Cloud cover Maximum 90%

Table 3: Criteria for image acquisition

To use specific bands of Landsat images and normalize different band naming
between Landsat 5, 7 and 8 normalization function was implemented under GEE-
API. A function to correct for latitudinal components of sun-sensor of target
geometry was used from landsat.usgs.gov/Landsat8_Using_Product.php. This
function further produces weighted pixel based on the user specified day of the
year, reflectance values of band ratios, pixel temperature and wetness. To correct
longitude and latitudes, solar elevation angel and radiometric characteristics of each
pixel was implemented using the information obtained from metadata of acquired
images. Using the quality function, each band of images from multiple temporal
initial and final time of change assessment were mosaicked. Single images for each
time periods were created using the same script and composited into a multi-
temporal stack for detection of change between the two time periods (figure 5).

The classification process consists of compiling the spectral signature for all the
training points, creating a model from this spectral library and applying the model
to the entire imagery. Two classifiers have been tested, the CART algorithm
(Breiman et al, 1984) and the RandomForest algorithm (Breiman, 2001).
 30

The validated training points were used at the national scale to train and directly
classify loss and gain from the mosaicked Landsat image. After a first run of
classification is completed, the training dataset can be improved by visually
assessing zones of false change (i.e stable areas classified as change) and missed
changes (i.e change classified as stable). Examples of potentially incorrect
classifications include agricultural area with strong greenness variations or shadows
due to elevation, which could be mistaken for false change and areas with known
deforestation classified as stable. The training sites are added on the misclassified
locations for the correct class. The new sites were entered in the spectral library
with appropriate labeling. Classification was iteratively improved by adding more
points of gain, loss and stable (figure 6). The outputs from the two algorithms were
visually compared and the RF classification was considered superior and used as the
result. The processing chain, from classification of the change, iterative
improvement of the training data, and export of the results was performed in the
Google Earth Engine API, with the following script (a GEE Trusted Tester account is
needed to open this link)

Figure 6: Number of available Landsat archives queried to create a best pixel mosaic in
Google Earth Engine.
 31

Figure 7: Iterative classification process for change detection.

Once the iterative process is determined to have no further improvements to the

 32

classification, the results can be exported. The exported result from the GEE-API
was filtered to only include loss or gains in clumps of 5 pixels to match the national
minimum mapping unit of forest, 0.5 hectares. The 2013 land cover map was used
to filter false loss by eliminating loss detected on forest and false gain by
eliminating gain detected on non-forest. Manual editing was implemented to
improve the change detection product by delineating false and missed changes
using the Landsat composite image of 2000 and high-resolution imagery for 2013
from Google Earth. An accuracy assessment of the change was finally produced to
estimate the reliability of the change measured (FAO, 2015), produce corrected
estimates of change and confidence intervals around those estimates.

Step 3 Accuracy assessment and bias-corrected area estimates

According to IPCC, it is good practice for countries to produce emission estimates
which: 1) neither over-nor underestimate actual emissions as far as can be judged,
introducing a systematic error (or bias), and 2) reduce uncertainties as far as
practicable given national circumstances. It is also good practice to quantify
uncertainties and report them in a transparent manner. For emission estimates from
deforestation and removal estimates from afforestation/reforestation, Ethiopia has
assessed forest area loss and forest area gain creating a wall-to-wall forest change
map. This estimation has four classes: forest loss, forest gain, stable forest and
stable non-forest for the period 2000-2013. All surface estimations contains errors,
most of which tend to be systematic (bias). Ethiopia has provided an estimate of
forest loss and forest gain (and forest cover) which is corrected for the map bias.
Classification errors were identified by collecting sample point data, independent of
the training data. The sample data verifies whether the classification is correct or
incorrect at the location of the sample points. This information is summarized in an
error matrix and the matrix is used to correct the areas per class (forest loss, gain,
stable forest and stable non-forest) for the map bias resulting in new area
estimates, referred to as bias-corrected area estimates. To quantify and report
uncertainty, Ethiopia also calculates and reports on confidence intervals around the
bias-corrected area estimates, which provide an indication of the precision of the
 33

estimate. Precision gives a description of random errors or variability. Large

confidence intervals indicate a large statistical variability of the population. The
process of correcting the map for bias is referred to as accuracy assessment.

The required overall number of samples which was calculated using the Olofsson et
al. methodology (2014) adopting the following assumptions, using conservative
user inputs to have a cost effective and robust sample size:

Table 4: Inputs needed for the statistical formula that calculates the number of overall
samples for the accuracy assessment

Input values selected by Ethiopia

Target standard error 0.01

Expected user’s accuracy forest loss 0.5

Expected user’s accuracy forest gain 0.5

Expected user’s accuracy stable forest 0.9

Expected user’s accuracy stable non-forest 0.9

The overall number of samples needed for the accuracy assessment are distributed
over the four map classes as follows: a minimum of 50 samples were allocated to
the “rare” map classes (classes covering a relatively small area) of forest loss and
forest gain. The remaining samples are distributed proportionally based on the
extent of the classes stable forest and stable non-forest.

Table 5: Samples distributed in the map classes for verification (collection of reference data)

Classes Sample points per map class

Forest loss 84

Forest gain 97

Stable forest 790

Stable non-forest 1013

Ethiopia has collected reference sample data to check whether the map
classification was correct at the location of the sample point. The sample data is
 34

collected by visual interpretation of the point using a time series of very high
resolution imagery and Landsat imagery. The visual interpretation of sample points
is referred to as “reference data”. Only points where the users had high confidence
of the classification were used, therefore the total number of reference points used
in the area estimation is 1984 samples.

An error matrix was used to compare the map classes against the reference data.
The overall accuracy of the map is calculated by dividing the samples where the
map and reference data agree (the bold sample counts in diagonal) divided by the
total number of samples (sum of sample counts in all cells in the matrix).

Table 6: Error matrix of Ethiopia’s forest change map 2000-2013.

Reference
2000-2013 Classes User’s
FL FG SF SNF Total
accuracy
Forest Loss (FL) 20 2 12 50 84 24%
Map data

Forest Gain (FG) 2 17 59 19 97 18%

Stable Forest (SF) 7 5 523 255 790 66%
Stable Non Forest (SNF) 10 1 83 919 1013 91%
Total 39 25 677 1243 1984
Producer's accuracy (PA) 51% 68% 77% 74% Overall
accuracy:
75%
FL= Forest Loss , FG= Forest Gain, SF= Stable Forest, SNF= Stable Non Forest, UA= Users Accuracy

In the error matrix, the rows provide information on the ‘over-detections’

(commission errors) by the map of a certain class, e.g. for the total of 84 samples
checked in the forest loss class in the map, 64 samples were over detected. The
commission errors for loss was when the map identified the sample as loss but the
reference data identified the sample as forest gain (2 samples), stable forest (12
samples), and stable non-forest (50 samples). The columns in the error matrix
provide information on the ‘under-detections’ (omission errors), e.g. out of the 39
reference data points classified as forest loss, the map missed or under-detected 19
samples as being forest loss. The next steps will identify these under- and over-
detections (bias) in terms of hectares and correct the map area for the commission
and omission errors by calculating bias-corrected area estimates.
 35

To convert the sample counts into areas by which the map area per class can be
corrected, we first need to convert the absolute sample counts into proportions of
the total amount of samples per map class. E.g. for forest loss 20 out of 84 samples
are in agreement which equals to a proportion of 0.24, 2/84 = 0.02 was forest
gain, 12/84 = 0.14 was stable forest and 50/84 = 0.60 was stable non-forest.

Table 7: Error matrix as proportion of agreement and disagreements by total number of

samples in each map class

Reference
2000- 2013 classes
FL FG SF SNF

Forest Loss (FL) 0.24 0.02 0.14 0.6

Map data

Forest Gain (FG) 0.02 0.18 0.61 0.2

Stable Forest (SF) 0.01 0.01 0.66 0.32

Stable Non Forest (SNF) 0.01 0.001 0.08 0.91

FL= Forest Loss , FG= Forest Gain, SF= Stable Forest, SNF= Stable Non Forest

In order to obtain the bias-corrected area estimate, first the map area was
calculated multiplying proportional error matrix of the corresponding rows in the
matrix (Table 8) multiplied by the map areas per class. The result of this
multiplication is shown in Table 10

Table 8: Matrix which gives correct classification, omission (under detection) and
commission (over detection) errors expressed in corresponding map area (ha)

Ref erence dat a

2000- 2013 classes
FL FG Map area

Forest Loss (FL) 88,616 8,862 372,188

Map data

Forest Gain (FG) 824 7,003 39,960

Bias correct ed area 1,192,559 246,063

FL= Forest Loss, FG= Forest Gain

The bias-corrected area estimates are obtained by the map area minus the over-
detections (commission errors) plus the under-detections (omission errors). E.g.
 36

the bias-corrected area estimate of forest loss is calculated by 372,188 ha – 88,616

ha – 53,170 ha– 221,540 ha + 824 ha + 907,955 ha = 1,192,559 ha.

The 95% confidence interval for the bias-corrected area estimates are calculated by
multiplying 1.96 by the standard error of the area estimate. The standard error of
the area estimate is calculated using formula 11 in Olofsson et al 2014. The results
are displayed in the table below:

Bias corrected area Confidence interval Confidence interval

Classes
(thousands of ha) (thousands of ha) (% of adjusted area)

Forest loss 1,193 +/- 579 49%

Forest gain 246 +/- 216 88%

Table 9: Bias-corrected area estimates (thousands of ha)

Figure 8: Map and bias-corrected area estimates of the AD

The results from the accuracy assessment for forest loss for the period 2000 to
2013 is 1,193 thousand ha +/- 579 thousand ha and for forest gain is 246 thousand
ha +/- 216 thousand ha. The annual forest loss is approximately 92 thousand
 37

ha/year and annual forest gain of approximately 19 thousand ha/year. This

estimate is used as the activity data (see Figure below).

The forest change map has also been overlaid with a map of biomes to divide the
forest loss, gain and forest cover estimates by biome. Forest loss and gain per
biome is used for the calculation of emissions and removals. The gain and loss per
biome is obtained by multiplying the loss/gain/forest areas in each biome by the
overall correction in the map, e.g. forest loss per biome is multiplied by a factor
1,192,55/372,18= 3.18. The relatively high annual forest area gain in the Dry
Afromontane biome gives some evidence that Ethiopia is already implementing
several mitigating actions that aim to restore forest resources. The on-going
mitigation actions reducing emissions are watershed management, agricultural
intensification, trees on farm for fuelwood, declining livestock (due to stall-feeding,
diseases, lack of own fodder and livestock raids), non-wood and alternative energy
sources, and controlled migration.

Table 10: Bias-corrected area estimates by biomes (ha)

FL= Forest Loss , FG= Forest Gain

Bias corrected area (thousands of ha)

Biome
Forest loss Forest gain
Acacia- Commiphora 194 30
Combretum- Terminalia 712 8
Dry Afromontane 66 179
Moist Afromontane 206 29
Other Biome 14 0.8
Tot al 1,193 246
 38

Figure 9: National forest area change detection 2000-2013 by biome.

Comparison of Activity Data results with data from Global Forest

Change
The average annual loss of 92,000 ha/year over the period 2000-2013 found by the
AD analysis is considerably higher than the tree cover loss found by the Global
Forest Change product, i.e. around 3 times higher. The tree cover loss found by the
Global Forest Product is not very different from the “raw” numbers in the map
before the map bias correction. This difference is explained by the considerable
correction of the area of change in the map for map bias. Remote Sensing is known
to have difficulties detecting dry deciduous forest, especially when on sandy soils
with high reflectance (Bodart et al., 2013). Both the forest loss map created by
Ethiopia and the Global Forest Change map reflect this systematic error therefore
systematically underestimating (dry) forests, and both losses and gains in these
forests.
 39

EMISSION FACTORS: NFI DATA ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION OF ETHIOPIA’S FOREST AND LANDSCAPE INVENTORY

Ethiopia has designed a national Forest and Landscape Inventory since March 2014,
as a TCP project. The collection of plot inventory data has been finalized and a
complete data analysis is in course. The selection and implementation of an
appropriate sampling design to collect raw forest data determines the output of
forest information that will be used for various kinds of decision making processes.
The sampling design, together with data collection procedures plays a crucial role in
determining the accuracy and the quality of information from the field. Hence, the
NFI of Ethiopia put strong emphasis on constructing a suitable forest inventory
sampling design that regards the country’s situation and need of forest information.

After a series of consultations with stakeholders, it was agreed to employ stratified

systematic sampling with feasible sampling intensities on the respective strata
according to potential vegetation. The NFI uses a stratification based on agro-
ecological zones of Ethiopia; the agro-ecological zones were made using elevation
and climate factors (altitude, temperature and rainfall) together with the land
use/land cover map of WBISPP 2004 and the Potential Vegetation Atlas of Ethiopia
(Friis and Sebsebe, 2009). The corresponding properties and the number of
sampling units per stratum are described further in Table 11.

According to the importance of the carbon stock in the strata types, the sampling
distances were determined and the plot coordinates were generated using grid
generator. Accordingly, within the grid resolution of 1/4 x 1/4 degree square and
triangular combination grids plots coordinates were generated in the Stratum I,
while a ½ x ½ degree square and triangular combination grids were used for Strata
II and IV, ½ x ½ degree square grid for Stratum III, and a 1x1 degree square grid
in Stratum V, resulting in a total of 631 Sampling Units (SU).

Table 11: Description of NFI strata and number of sampling units located in each stratum
 40

Stratum Description Sampling units

I Comprises natural forest, plantation and Bamboo, 107

that are found within the altitude range of 2300
to 3200 m.a.s.l.

II Comprises of the North and South Eastern part of

135
the woodland mainly Acacia Commiphora
woodland of Somali, SNNPRs and Afar regions

III Comprises mainly the woodland ecosystem found 137

in the North and South Western woodland parts
where Combretum-Terminalia woodland is
dominant

IV This stratum is commonly known as other land 232

stratum where human activities are dominated
and patches of evergreen Afromontain forest
exist, mostly in the middle altitudes of Ethiopia
(1500 to 2500 m.a.s.l.)

IV This stratum refers to the desert and arid pats of 20

Ethiopia where the elevation range is found below
500 m.a.s.l. and characterized by arid and semi-
arid scrublands.
 41

Figure 10: NFI sample unit per stratum

In the NFI, data was collected in the field through observations and measurements
at different levels: within the limits of the sampling units (SU) and in smaller
subunits within each SU, and Land Use/Cover Sections (LUCS). A sampling unit
consists of four subunits (sample plots) that can be divided into LULC. Trees and
stumps in the entire plot area have been recorded and small trees (in forest) and
saplings were recorded in smaller subplots (see the table below).
 42

Measurements and observations

Other Wooded
Data collection level Lands and
Forest Other lands
Woodlots (0.2-
0.5ha)

- Localisation and access to SU

SU (sampling
unit) - Size: 1000 m x 1000 m (1 km2)

- Measurement of - Measurement of trees with

trees with Dbh ≥ 10 cm
Dbh ≥ 20 cm
Plot
- Size: 250 m x 20
(5000 m2)

Circular - Count of trees with Dbh < 10cm and None

Subplot height ≥ 1.30m, by species

None None

Measurement - Shrubs, bushes (count or measurement None

Rectangular of trees with by species)
Subplot 10cm ≤ Dbh - Presence or abundance or count of - Indicator plant
< 20cm indicator plant species, NWFP species
Size 20m x 10m

- Measurements of fallen deadwood branches (diameter

≥ 2.5 cm)
Size: 20 m
Fallen
Deadwood
Transect

- Land Use/Cover class

- General information related to the area (designation, land
tenure…)
- Vegetation cover (trees, shrubs, grass)
Land
(- Environmental problems, fires, erosion, grazing activities)
Use/Cover
Section
(LUCS) - Stand structure and management:
harvesting, silviculture, management - Crop
plan... management
practices
- Human-induced disturbances

Table 12: Tree and other vegetation measurements and observations in NFI.
 43

Analysis of NFI Data

According to the Globallometree online database (http://globallometree.org), at
least 63 allometric equations are specific to Ethiopia. Most of these equations are
specific to plantations and/or species specific. Thus, these allometric equations are
not suitable for a national scale application for all the biomes. In order to represent
all the forest types in the first phase of analysis the allometric equation developed
by Chave et al. (2014) was used to convert field measurements into above ground
biomass estimates. The biomass estimates using Chave’s equation results in values
that are closer to the average biomass estimates for the different forest types from
a review of secondary sources (e.g. theses, published and unpublished papers).

The following parameters are needed to calculate above ground biomass in carbon
stock: diameter at breast height (dbh), tree height, a wood density factor and a
carbon fraction. The dbh and height parameters are measured in the field. A carbon
fraction of 0.47 has been applied, which is the default value for wood in the tropical
and subtropical domain (IPCC 2006).


AGB = 0.0673  WD  DBH 2
H 
0.976

Where:

AGB = above ground biomass (in kg dry matter)

WD = wood density (g/cm3)

DBH = diameter at breast height (in cm)

H = total height of the tree (in m)

In order to express the AGB pool in carbon stock, the AGB is multiplied by a carbon
fraction of 0.47 (kg C/kg dry matter).

According to Chave et al. (2014) the inclusion of country specific wood density in
the equation significantly improves biomass estimation. Therefore, MEFCC
conducted an extensive study to determine the most appropriate wood density
estimate for the country and basic wood density of 421 indigenous and exotic tree
species growing in Ethiopia (see table in annex). The overall average wood density
 44

for the species is 0.612 g cm-3. This overall average wood density is comparable
with the global average value and that of tropical Africa (Chave et al. 2009; Reyes
et al 1992; Brown and Lugo 1984, IPCC 2006). The minimum value of wood density
was 0.262 for Moringa species, and the maximum was 1.040 g cm-3 for Dodonaea
angustifolia.

The BGB carbon pool default conversion factors proposed by IPCC (2006) were
applied using the ecological zone and ratios in Table 13.

Table 13: IPCC ratios for Below Ground Biomass (2006)

R
Ecological Zone Above Ground Biomass [tonne root d.m. (tonne
shoot d.m,)-1

AGB<125 t ha-1 0,2

Tropica Moist Deciduous Forest

AGB>125 t ha-1 0,24

AGB<20 t ha-1 0,56

Tropical Dry Forest

AGB>20 t ha-1 0,28

Tropical shrubland 0,4
Tropical Mountain System 0,27

For fallen deadwood, the De Vries’ formula (De Vries, 1986) was applied, estimating
log volume in m3 ha−1. This formula requires the length of the transect (L) and the
log diameter (d) at the point of intersection

Where:

V = volume per hectare of deadwood,

 45

d = log diameter at the point of intersection of the transect perpendicular to the

axis of the log,

L = length of the transect.

Two decomposition classes were recorded for deadwood particles: sound and
rotten. Missing data in the decomposition classes were assumed to be sound
deadwood piece. Because a rotten wood contains less biomass than a sound wood,
the wood density of dead wood is scaled down using lower wood densities than for
standing trees, as follows:

Sound deadwood biomass: Volume * 90% * Default WD,

Rotten deadwood biomass: Volume * 50% * Default WD.

The default wood density for the species is 0.612 g cm-3, similarly as for trees.

The NFI data analysis is based on the analysis of 539 accessible and surveyed
sample units from the NFI out of the 631 sample units from the original sampling
design. The surveyed sample units are from the different regions (Table 14).

The calculations for the EF are based on the land use sections of each sample unit
classified as forest.

Table 14: Number of SUs accessible and SUs accessible with cover sections
classified as forest per region

N of accessible sampling  N of accessible sampling units 
Region
units with forest
Tigray 31 5
Afar 23  
Amhara 94 12
Oromia 200 68
Somali 80 1
Beneshangul Gumu 28 12
SNNPR 68 25
Gambela 15 5
Total 539 128
 
 46

Table 15: Number of NFI SU analyzed per Stratum and per Biome

Biome

Acacia- Combretum- Dry Moist

Others Total
Commiphora Terminalia Afromontane Afromontane

13 18 59   95
5
Stratum I
107         107
Stratum II
1 93   6 1 101
Stratum III
36 38 114 29 1 218
Stratum IV
15 2     1 18
Stratum V
164 146 132 94 3 539
Total
 

     

Table 16: Number of SU classified as forest strata included in the EF analysis.

Acacia- Combretum- Dry Moist

Others Total
Commiphora Terminalia Afromontane Afromontane

9 12 50   72
1
Stratum I
2         2
Stratum II
  14   2   16
Stratum III
1 7 17 12   37
Stratum IV
1         1
Stratum V
5 30 29 64   128
Total

The NFI sample plot design implies a different sampling probability for trees in the
plots and small trees in the sub-plots. Thus, two different areal weighting methods
 47

for tree and sapling data were applied. All results were first computed at the LUCS
level by plots, and then aggregated up to strata level by regions.

Figure 11: Carbon estimated per strata per all the land uses

From Strata to Biomes estimates

The biome stratification for the FRL was introduced when the NFI was in progress. A
new estimation methodology has been introduced, called a posteriori, for the FRL
purposes. The methodology was needed because the NFI design is based on a pre-
stratification assumption using five stratum that do not perfectly overlap with the
biome strata.

In order to ensure consistency in the estimates, a robust statistical procedure has

been chosen based on a methods described by Model Assisted Survey Sampling
(Sarndal et al., 1992)

The first step involves using a ratio estimator, defined by the ratio between the
variable y (tons of carbon) and the variable x (hectares of forest). Both y and x
have been measured for each plot. The index d, which in statistical literature is
referred to as a “domain”, is the biomes.
 48

The sample selected (the 631 plots from the sample design) is called s. sd is the
portion of the sample that fall into biome d (so, for example, for the NFI strata 1, sd
correspond to the 5 plots that have fallen into the biome 1).

The NFI design is stratified, therefore each stratum has a different sampling

intensity defined by the inclusion probability ( ) of each plot. The has been

computed by dividing the number of hectares sampled in each strata by the total
area of the strata (when sampling intensity is higher, inclusion probability is
higher). Because the total area of the strata is much bigger than the area actually

inventoried, the value can be very small. In the same domain, the plots can

come from different strata and therefore they can have different inclusion
probabilities.

The domain ratio estimator has been calculated using the following equation:

Where:

 is the expanded value carbon of each plot divided by the plot’s

inclusion probability ( ): ;

 is the expanded value of hectares of forest of each plot divided by the

plot’s inclusion probability ( ): .

The domain ratio estimator provides the total domain. The average has been
calculated dividing by the size of the domain as follows:
 49

This calculation has been used to compute the estimates per hectare for each
biome.

The variance computation proposed by the Sarndal methodology is:

where:

 is the -expanded value of the residuals eks divided by the inclusion

probability:

and:

 and the -expanded covariance of sampling indicators and variance

indicated by the Bernouilli pairwise plot selection probabilities:

where each pair of plots are here indexed using k and l.

When the plots k and l come from different strata, their selection has been
independent:

and is therefore 0.

When the plots k and l come from the same stratum then:
 50

While

As k and l are from the same plot and from the same stratum .

is then computed as:

For N very big (as it is in our case) approximates to 0.

For k=l, approximates to 1

To summarize, the

equals 0 whenever k is different from l.

The variance formula can be then approximated to:

Where B is a biome-specific factor akin to a slope in a regression between y and x.

The comparative advantage of this approach is that the result is not approximated
or inaccurate conversed because the biomes and NFI strata do not perfectly
spatially intersect. The variance values differs in the new estimates because they
combine the variance from the NFI strata and the biomes.
 51

In order to correctly apply the BGB ratios from the IPCC (2006), the ecological zone
layers have been applied. Tables 15, 16 and 17 shows that the distribution of SU by
biomes and ecological zones differs from the distribution by biomes and NFI strata.

Table 17: distribution of the all the SUs per Biome and Ecological Zones:

Ecological Zones
Tropical
Tropical Tropical
Tropical moist Tropical Total
dry mountain Water
desert deciduous shrubland Result
forest system
Biomes forest
Acacia-Commiphora 18 0 0 54 123 0 195
Combretum-
Terminalia 0 43 13 92 31 0 179
Dry Afromontaine 0 1 148 2 0 151
Moist Afromontaine 0 1 7 85 0 0 93
Others 1 1 0 2 4 1 9
Total 19 46 20 381 160 1 627
The difference in the distribution is why there is not direct correspondence between
AGB and BGB in some estimates.

Comparison NFI Results and Secondary Data Sources

Numerous studies have been undertaken in Ethiopia already assessing forest
carbon stock. To validate the results from the NFI the findings have been compared
with these secondary data sources. The secondary data and information was
obtained from various sources, some processed and other raw data, including MSc
theses, PhD dissertations, research reports, project reports and grey literature. For
some of the secondary sources, original data (raw data) were obtained from the
respective researchers and re-analysed. In total, 1602 sampling units were
involved, excluding the sample number from the WBISPP, 2004. The results of the
analysis of secondary data sources are given in Figure 12.
 52

Figure 12: The average AGB (tC/ha) with their confidence intervals for forest in the 4
biomes is compared between primary (NFI) and secondary (literature and local studies)

The use of primary data greatly reduces the confidence intervals of the NFI analysis
when compared to the secondary data analysis. When comparing the results from
secondary and primary data analysis, there is a large difference in AGB estimates
for Dry and Moist Afromontane forests, where the secondary sources suggest much
higher carbon contents (220% and 62% higher for Dry and Moist Afromontane
forest, respectively). This difference is believed to be attributed to the sample
design in the secondary data, which most likely targeted primary and dense forest
patches. Therefore, the NFI data is thought to be more representative for
estimating emissions and removals from country-wide forest area changes.

A further comparison has been done with the IPCC default values, showing a
substantial concordance with the NFI estimates (cfr. table 18).
 53

Table 18: IPCC 2006 default AGB values comparison with the Biomes estimates.The
asterisk identifies the most represented ecological zones in Ethiopia

Correspondent
Above-ground
above-ground
Ecological zones biomass
biomass range for
(t ha-1)
Biomes (t ha-1)
Tropical moist deciduous
260 (160-430) 65-200
forest

Tropical dry forest 120 (120-130) 65

Tropical shrubland* 70 (20-200) 55-65

Tropical mountain systems* 40-190 113-200

Above-ground
Biomes biomass
(t ha-1)

Acacia-Commiphora 55

Combretum-Terminalia 65

Dry Afromontaine 113

Moist Afromontaine 200

Results and Proposed Emission Factors

The results of the analysis of the average forest carbon stock in the Above Ground
Biomass (AGB), Below Ground Biomass (BGB) and deadwood carbon pools are
provided in Figure 13, 14 and 15 respectively. The deadwood results for the Acacia-
 54

Commiphora biome are not considered reliable as some very large diameters
strongly influence the results. It is expected that this data will become available
once the national level data has been collected in the course of 2016.

Figure 13: NFI results for the average AGB carbon stock per biome in forest
 55

Figure 14: NFI results for the average BGB carbon stock per biome in forest

Figure 15: NFI results for deadwood carbon stock per biome in forest
 56

Ethiopia assumes total oxidation of AGB, BGB and deadwood after forest
conversion, therefore emission factors are approximated by the full carbon stock in
AGB, BGB and deadwood for forest in the different biomes. The removal factor for
forest gain is estimated as the inverse of the emission factor therefore assuming
full average carbon stock for each hectare of gain detected. As such, Ethiopia does
not take into account the age structure in the forest, which would introduce too
much complexity (for the time being). Assuming the full carbon stock is removed
from the atmosphere at the time gain is detected may over-estimate the removals
corresponding to the early years of forest growth. However, this may be
compensated by the fact that gain is generally detected by remote sensing in a
later stage of growth (therefore removals already preceded the time of detection).
 57

RELEVANT POLICIES, PLANS AND FUTURE CHANGES

Ethiopia’s development agenda is governed by two key strategies: the Second

Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP-2) and the Climate Resilient Green Economy
(CRGE) strategy. Both strategies prioritize attainment of middle income status by
2025 and, through the CRGE Strategy, to achieve this by taking low carbon,
resilient, green growth actions. Both strategies emphasize agriculture and forestry;
The CRGE Strategy targets 7 million hectares for forest expansion. GTP-2 Goal 15
aims to: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems by
managing forests, combating desertification, and halting and reversing land
degradation and halt biodiversity loss.”

The strategic directions of the forest sector in GTP-2 are enabling the community to
actively participate in environmental protection and forest development activities,
and implementing the green economy strategy at all administration levels and
embarking on environmental protection and forest development at a scale. In the
GTP-2, the sector has thus set goals mainly in relation to building climate resilient
green economy, environmental protection and forest development. This will be
applied mainly in priority sectors identified by the CRGE strategy. In addition, a goal
of the sector is mobilizing resources that can enable full implementation the CRGE
strategy. In terms of forest development, the aim is to increase the share of the
forest sector in the overall economy. The strategy also aims to increase the forest
coverage through research-based forest development. A target set during the GTP-
2, is to reduce deforestation by half.
 58

PROPOSED FOREST REFERENCE LEVEL

CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AND PROPOSED FOREST REFERENCE

EMISSION LEVEL FOR DEFORESTATION AND FOREST REFERENCE
LEVEL FOR AFFORESTATION
Ethiopia proposes a Forest Reference Emission Level based on average annual
emissions and removals over the period 2000-2013 assessed by AD x EF. The
emissions from deforestation in the FRL are assessed at 17.9 mln t CO2 e/yr while
the removals from afforestation are assessed at 4.8. mln t CO2 e/yr.

Figure 16: Emission by Biome.

 59

Figure 17: Reductions per biome

 60

UPDATING FREQUENCY

In order to ensure the accuracy of the FRL with updated socio-economic conditions
and in order to incorporate new or improved data that may be available, the FRL
will be revised periodically. Ethiopia proposed this FRL to be valid at least for 5
years, yet it may be improved and updated more frequently. Ethiopia is also
evaluating the possibility of undertaking a new region based forest inventory, with a
5 year cycle.
 61

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Forest degradation is believed to be an important source of emissions by Ethiopia

and several measures are being put in place to reduce emissions from forest
degradation (e.g. the promotion of energy efficient cooking stoves, planting trees
on-farm boundaries for fuelwood and the provision of non-wood and alternative
energy sources). Therefore, Ethiopia is strongly interested in testing and
developing a cost-effective, robust and reliable methods for consistent measuring
and monitoring of emissions from forest degradation for its future inclusion in the
FRL.
 62

REFERENCES

1. Breiman, L., Freidman, JH, Olshen, RA, and Stonem CJ. 1984. Classification
and regression trees. Wadsworth, Belmont CA.
2. Breiman. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 45, 2-32.
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm
3. CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m DEM Digital Elevation Database, versión 4. CGIAR
Consortium for Spatial Information (CGIAR-CSI). URL:
http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/Index.asp
4. Bodart, C., Brink A., Donnay F., Lupi, A., Mayaux, P., & Achard, F. (2013).
Continental estimates of forest cover and forest cover changes in the dry
ecosystems of Africa between 1990 and 2000. Journal of biogeography,
40(6), 1036-1047.
5. Brown, S. (1997). Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical
forests: a Primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134:120-130.
6. Brown, S. (2002). Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future
challenges. Environmental Pollution 116: 363-372.
7. Brown, S. and A. E. Lugo (1990). Tropical secondary forests. Journal of
Tropical Ecology 6:1-32.
8. Brown, S. and Lugo, A. (1982). The storage and production of organic matter
in tropical forests and their role in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica 14:
161-187.
9. Brown, S.A.J., Gillespie, J.R. and Lugo, A.E.(1989). Biomass estimation
methods for tropical forests with application to forest inventory data. Forest
Science 35: 110-115.
10.Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S. 2009. Towards a worldwide wood economics
spectrum. Ecology Letters, 12, 351–366.
11.Chave, J., Andalo, C., Brown, S., Cairns, M.A., Chambers, J.Q., Eamus, D.,
Fölster, H.,Fromard, F., Higuchi, N., Kira, T., Lescure, J.-P., Nelson, B., Ogawa,
H., Puig, H.,Riéra, B., Yamakura, T., 2005. Tree allometry and improved
estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 145,
87–99.
12.Chave J, et al. 2014. Improved allometric models to estimate the
aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Global Change Biology 20, pp. 3177–
90.
13.Cornelissen, J. H. C., S. Lavorel, E. Garnier, S. Diaz, N. Buchmann, D. E.
Gurvich, P. B. Reich, H. ter Steege, H. D. Morgan, M. G. A. van der Heijden,
J. G. Pausas, and H. Poorter. 2003. A handbook of protocols for standardized
and December 2006 WOOD DENSITY IN NEOTROPICAL FORESTS 2365 easy
measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of
Botany 51:335–380.
14.CSA (2007). Population and Housing Census Report-Country – 2007
(http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php/2013-02-20-14-51-51/2013-04-01-11-53-
00/census-2007)
15.Demel Teketay, Mulugeta Lemenih, Tesfaye Bekele, Yonas Yemshaw, Sisay
Feleke, Wubalem Tadesse, Yitebitu Moges, Tesfaye Hunde & Demeke Nigussie
 63

(2010). Forest Resources and Challenges of Sustainable Forest Management

and Conservation in Ethiopia. In: Bongers F & T. Tennigkeit (eds). Degraded
forests in Eastern Africa: management and restoration. Earthscan
Publications.
16.FAO & JRC. 2012. Global forest land-use change 1990–2005, by E.J.
Lindquist, R. D’Annunzio, A. Gerrand, K. MacDicken, F. Achard, R. Beuchle, A.
Brink, H.D. Eva, P. Mayaux, J. San-Miguel-Ayanz & H-J. Stibig. FAO Forestry
Paper No. 169. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and
European Commission Joint Research Centre. Rome, FAO.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3110e/i3110e.pdf
17.FAO 2015. Global forest Resources Assessment. Rome, Italy.
18.FAO. 2015. Map Accuracy Assessment and Area Estimation: A Practical
Guide.
19.Foody and Mathur. 2006. The use of small training sets containing mixed
pixels for accurate hard image classification: Training on mixed spectral
responses for classification by a SVM. Remote Sensing of Environment.
103:2, 179-189.
20.Friis, I., Demissew, S., & Breugel, P. V. (2010). Atlas of the potential
vegetation of Ethiopia. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.
21.FSR (2015). Ethiopia Forest Sector Review. Focus on commercial forestry and
industrialization. UNIQUE forestry and land use / CONSCIENTIA, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
22.Hedberg, I. (1996). Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (pp. 802-804). Springer
Netherlands.
23.GFOI. 2014. Space data services: Support for National Forest Monitoring
Systems.http://www.gfoi.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/Space_Data_Services_External _v1.1.pdf
24.Hansen, M. C., et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century
forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850-853.
25.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G., & Jarvis, A. 2005.
Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas.
International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965-1978.
26.Hurni K, Zeleke G, Kassie M, Tegegne B, Kassawmar T, Teferi E, Moges A,
Tadesse D, Ahmed M, Degu Y, Kebebew Z, Hodel E, Amdihun A, Mekuriaw A,
Debele B, Deichert G, Hurni H. 2015. Economics of Land Degradation (ELD)
Ethiopia Case Study. Soil Degradation and Sustainable Land Management in
the Rainfed Agricultural Areas of Ethiopia: An Assessment of the Economic
Implications. Report for the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative. 94 pp.
27.Lehner, B. & Döll, P. (2004). Development and validation of a global database
of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296: 1-22.
28.Helina Tilahun and Emily Schmidt (2012). Spatial Analysis of Livestock
Production Patterns in Ethiopia. ESSP II Working Paper 44, IFPRI, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
29.Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Stehman, S. V., & Woodcock, C. E. 2013. Making
better use of accuracy data in land change studies: Estimating accuracy and
area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation.Remote Sensing
of Environment, 129, 122-131.
 64

30.Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., &
Wulder, M. A. 2014. Good practices for estimating area and assessing
accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment, 148, 42-57.
31.Pearcy R. W., Ehleringer J. R., Mooney H. A., Rundel P. W. . 1989. Plant
physiological ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA.
32.Reusing, M. (2000). Change detection of natural high forests in Ethiopia
using remote sensing and GIS techniques. International Archives of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXIII, Part B7. Amsterdam 2000
33.Reyes, G., S. Brown, J. Chapman, and A. E. Lugo. 1992. Wood densities of
tropical tree species. General Technical Report SO-88. USDA Forest Service,
Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
34.Sarndal, B. Swensson, J. Wretman: Model Assisted Survey Sampling,
Springer, New York, 1992
35.Tewkesbury, A. P., Comber, A. J., Tate, N. J., Lamb, A., & Fisher, P. F. 2015. A
critical synthesis of remotely sensed optical image change detection
techniques. Remote Sensing of Environment, 160, 1-14.
36.De Vries P.G., 1986. Sampling theory for forest inventory. A teach-yourself
course, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 420 p.
37.WBISPP (2004). A strategic plan for the sustainable development,
conservation and management of the woody biomass resources: Final report.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture. 60 pp.
38.Westerman R. L. 1990. Soil testing and plant analysis, 3rd ed. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
39.de Wit, M. & Stankiewicz, J. 2006. Changes in Surface Water Supply across
Africa with Predicted Climate Change. Science 311: 1917-1921.
 65

ANNEX

ANNEX I

SU area Samples
Strata SU Strata Area (Ha) Sampling Intensity
(Ha) distribution (%)

Stratum I 107 214 4,058,626 5.27272E-05 59.0

Stratum II 135 270 39,339,300 6.86337E-06 7.7

Stratum III 137 274 19,689,121 1.39163E-05 15.6

Stratum IV 232 464 35,588,651 1.30379E-05 14.6

Stratum V 20 40 14,445,525 2.76902E-06 3.1

TOTALS 631 1,262 113,121,223 8.93138E-05 100

SU area Samples
Biome SU Biome Area (Ha) Sampling Intensity
(Ha) distribution (%)

Acacia-Commiphora 195 390 58,654,959 6.64905E-06 9.7

Combretum-Terminalia 179 358 25,715,132 1.39218E-05 20.4

Dry Afromontaine 151 302 19,720,064 1.53144E-05 22.4

Moist Afromontaine 93 186 8,440,625 2.20363E-05 32.3

Others 9 18 1,736,549 1.03654E-05 15.2

TOTALS 627 1,254 114,267,329 6.82868E-05 100

Table 19: sampling distribution and sampling intensity comparisons between NFI strata and biomes.

NOTE:The difference between the number of SU (631 and 627) is due to the fact that 4 SU during the sampling design are accidentally fall
outside the national boundaries currently adopted.
 66

ANNEX II
Table 20: Basic Wood Density of Indigenous and Exotic Tree Species in Ethiopia
Basic Density Data
No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
1 Acacia abyssinica 0.826 average of genus (ICRAF database) M
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/regions/southeast
2 Acacia albida 0.562 _asia/resources/db/wd M
3 Acacia asak 0.769 average of genus (ICRAF database) M
4 Acacia brevispica 0.769 >> M
5 Acacia bussei 0.769 >> M
Acacia decurrens Air dry
6 0.816 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
7 Acacia dolichocephala 0.769 average of genus M
8 Acacia drepanolobium 0.769 >> M
9 Acacia etbaica 0.590 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
Tropical Africa: global database (Zanne et al.,
10 Acacia gerrardii 0.775 2009) M
11 Acacia goetzei 0.883 >> M
12 Acacia hokii 0.769 average of genus (ICRAF database) M
13 Acacia Iahai 0.769 >> M
14 Acacia macrothyrsa 0.769 >> M
15 Acacia mellifera 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
16 Acacia mollis 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
17 Acacia nilotica 0.723 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
18 Acacia oerofota 0.769 average of genus M
19 Acacia pentagon 0.826 average of genus (ICRAF database) M
20 Acacia polyacantha 0.769 average of genus M
21 Acacia reficiens 0.769 >> M
22 Acacia robusta 0.769 >> M
23 Acacia senegal 0.741 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
24 Acacia seyal 0.497 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
25 Acacia sieberiana 0.769 average of genus M
26 Acacia tortilis 0.590 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
27 Acacia xiphocarpa 0.769 average of genus M
28 Acacia Zanzibarica 0.769 average of genus M
29 Acallypha acrogyna 0.300 A. Cauturus (Zanne et al.; global database), L
30 Acanthus sp. 0.592 Global database (Zanne et al., 2009) M
31 Acokanthera schimperi 0.784 Acokanthera oppositifolia (from Global database) L
Acrocarpus air dry
32 fraxinifolius 0.610 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
33 Adansonia digitata 0.590 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
same species from wood density for trees of
34 Adathada schimperiana 0.640 Uganda L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Alangi
35 Alangium chinense 0.420 um_chinense M
36 Alangium Chinese 0.408 >> M
37 Albizia aylemeri 0.579 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Alangi
38 Albizia glaberiima 0.555 um_chinense M
39 Albizia grandibracteata 0.534 Albizia gummifera L
Albizia gummifera air dry
40 0.580 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Alangi
41 Albizia lebbeck 0.596 um_chinense M
42 Albizia lophantha 0.579 Genus average M
 67

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
43 Albizia malacophylla 0.579 Genus average M
air dry
44 Albizia schimperiana 0.530 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
45 Alchernea laxiflora 0.525 A. hirtella; Zanne et al.; global database L
Alchornea
46 euphorbiacae 0.525 >> L
Alihornea
47 euphorbiscara 0.525 >> L
air dry
48 Allophylus abyssinicus 0.580 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
49 Allophylus abyssinicus 0.491 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
50 Allophylus rubifolius 0.494 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Alstoni
51 Alstonia boonei 0.387 a_boonei L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Alstoni
52 Annona crassiflora 0.400 a_boonei L
53 Anogeissus leiocarpa 0.880 >> L
54 Antialis toxicalia 0.432 Antiaris africana; L
air dry
55 Antiaris toxicaria 0.470 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
56 Apodytes dimidiata 0.610 s M
air dry
57 Apodytes dimidiata 0.710 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
Argomaellera
58 maerophylla 0.640 Wood density of trees of Uganda L
air dry
59 Arundinaria alpine 0.630 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2067 H desnity
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
60 Azadirachta indica 0.728 s M
61 Balanites aegyptiaca 0.542 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
62 Balanites glabra 0.684 Genus average M
63 Baphia abyssinica 0.559 B. Nitida (global database: Zanne et al., 2009) L
64 Berberis holstii 0.641 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
65 Berchemia discolor 0.895 s M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Bersama
66 Bersama abyssinica 0.671 & also global database H
air dry
67 Blighia unijugata 0.700 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
68 Blighia unijugata 0.564 s M
69 Boswellia hildebrandtii 0.500 Boswellia sp L
70 Boswellia microphylla 0.500 >> L
71 Boswellia neglecta 0.500 >> L
72 Boswellia papyrifera 0.500 >> L
73 Boswellia rivae 0.500 >> L
74 Boswellia sp 0.500 Boswellia serrata (FAO data) L
75 Bridelia cathartica 0.587 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
76 Bridelia micrantha 0.540 s M
77 Brucea antidysenterica 0.640 Wood density of Trees of Uganda L
78 Buddleia polystachya 0.400 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
79 Caesalpinia trothae 0.951 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Caesalpi
80 Caesalpinia volkensii 0.951 nia) Genus average M
81 Callistemon citrinus 0.951 >> M
 68

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
82 Calotropis procera 0.794 Genus average M
83 Canthium euryoides 0.643 Genus average M
84 Canthium giordanii 0.643 Genus average M
85 Canthium oligocarpum 0.643 Genus average M
86 Canthium setiglarum 0.643 Genus average M
87 Capparis cartilagenia 0.691 Genus average M
88 Capparis micrantha 0.691 Genus average M
89 Capsicum conicum 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
Carissa spinarium
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/79021
90 Carissa edulis 0.650 9/tab1/ L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
91 Cassia didymobotrya 0.745 s M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
92 Cassia sinqueana 0.706 s M
93 Cassipourea malosana 0.673 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
94 Casuarina equisetifolia 0.766 s M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Apodyte
95 Catha edulis 0.658 s M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Celtis_
96 Celtis africana 0.745 africana M
air dry
97 Celtis africana 0.760 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
98 Celtis kranssiana 0.604 Genus average M
99 Celtis philippinensis 0.611 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd M
100 Celtis zenkeri 0.59 FAO database M
Chaionanthus
101 mildbraedii 0.705 Average Chionanthus L
102 Citrus aurantifolia 0.699 Genus average M
103 Citrus aurantium 0.699 Genus average M
104 Citrus grandis 0.590 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd M
105 Citrus medica 0.770 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd M
106 Citrus meolica 0.699 Genus average M
107 Citrus reticulata 0.699 Genus average M
108 Citrus sinensis 0.699 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Clause
109 Clausena anisata 0.482 na_anisata M
110 Clematis hirsuta 0.526 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Coffea
111 Coffea arabica 0.620 _arabica M
112 Combretum aculeatum 0.474 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
Combretum
113 binderianum 0.880 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
114 Combretum colinum 0.590 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
115 Combretum ghasalense 0.845 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
116 Combretum molle 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
117 Combretum voldensii 0.845 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
118 Commiphora africana 0.276 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
119 Commiphora africana 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
Commiphora
120 alaticaulis 0.389 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
121 Commiphora billia 0.389 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
Commiphora
122 bioviniana 0.646 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
123 Commiphora 0.389 Genus average M
 69

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
boranensis
124 Commiphora bruceau 0.389 Genus average M
125 Commiphora confusa 0.389 Genus average M
Commiphora
126 ellenbeckii 0.389 Genus average M
Commiphora
127 erlangeriana 0.389 Genus average M
128 Commiphora erythraea 0.389 Genus average M
Commiphora
129 habessinica 0.389 Genus average M
130 Commiphora ogadensis 0.389 Genus average M
131 Commiphora schimperi 0.389 Genus average M
Commiphora
132 sphaerophylla 0.389 Genus average M
133 Commiphora tenuis 0.389 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Cordia
134 Cordia africana 0.482 _africana M
air dry
135 Cordia africana 0.410 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
136 Cordia allliodora 0.390 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
137 Cordia monoica 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
138 Cordia ovalis 0.544 Genus average M
Crasocephalum
139 montuosum 0.331 C. Manii M
140 Crassocephalus montus 0.331 C. Manii M
141 Croton dichogamus 0.525 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Croton
142 Croton macrostachyus 0.518 _macrostachyus M
air dry
143 Croton macrostachyus 0.560 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
144 Cupressus lusitanica 0.430 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
145 Cussonia holstii 0.409 Genus average M
146 Cussonia ostinii 0.409 Genus average M
147 Dalbergia boehmii 0.821 Genus average M
148 Dalbergia melanoxylon 0.728 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
149 Dichrostachys cinerea 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
air dry
150 Diospyros abyssinica 0.790 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
Diospyros
151 mespiliformis 0.758 Genus average M
Discopodium
152 penninervium 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
153 Dodonaea angustifolia 1.040 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
154 Dombeya bruceana 0.580 Genus average M
155 Dombeya quenguesta 0.580 Genus average M
156 Dombeya torrida 0.451 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
157 Dombeya torrida 0.588 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
158 Dovyalis abyssinica 0.579 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
159 Dracaena afromontane 0.418 Genus average M
genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Dracae
160 Dracaena fragrans 0.418 na) M
161 Dracaena steudneri 0.418 >> M
162 Ehretia cymosa 0.560 http://globalspecies.org/ntaxa/2529407 L
163 Ehretia cymosa 0.484 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
 70

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
air dry
164 Ekebergia capensis 0.580 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
165 Embelia schimperi 0.775 Embelia oleifera L
166 Erica arborea 0.357 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Erythri
167 Erythrina abyssinica 0.426 na_abyssinica M
Genus average
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Erythrin
168 Erythrina brucei 0.314 a M
Erythrococca
169 abyssinica 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
170 Erythrococca Kirkii 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
Erythrococca
171 trichogynol 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
Average Genus
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Erythro
172 Erythroxylum fisherriii 0.802 xylum) M
Eucalyptus air dry
173 camaldulensis 0.853 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
174 Eucalyptus citriodora 0.830 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
air dry
175 Eucalyptus deanei 0.570 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
176 Eucalyptus deglupta 0.410 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
177 Eucalyptus delegatensis 0.530 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
178 Eucalyptus dunii 0.610 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
179 Eucalyptus fastigata 0.650 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
180 Eucalyptus globulus 0.780 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
181 Eucalyptus grandis 0.560 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
182 Eucalyptus grandis 0.665 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
air dry
183 Eucalyptus microcorys 0.860 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
184 Eucalyptus nitens 0.760 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
185 Eucalyptus obliqua 0.670 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
186 Eucalyptus paniculata 0.830 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
187 Eucalyptus pilularis 0.948 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
188 Eucalyptus regnans 0.480 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
189 Eucalyptus saligna 0.680 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
air dry
190 Eucalyptus viminalis 0.670 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Erythri
191 Euclea schimperi 0.741 na_abyssinica M
192 Euphorbia abyssinica 0.471 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
Euphorbia
193 candelabrum 0.471 genus average M
194 Euphorbia sp. 0.314 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
195 Euphorbia tirucallii 0.471 genus average M
 71

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
air dry
196 Fagaropsis angolensis 0.700 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
197 Faurea saligna 0.704 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
198 Ficus brachypoda 0.441 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
199 Ficus elastica 0.607 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
200 Ficus exasperata 0.377 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
201 Ficus gnaphalocarpa 0.441 Genus average M
Average Ficus
202 Ficus mucuso 0.441 (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Ficus) M
203 Ficus oxata 0.441 >> M
204 Ficus sp. 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
205 Ficus sur 0.441 http://globalspecies.org/ntaxa/869708 L
206 Ficus sycomorus 0.422 http://globalspecies.org/ntaxa/869708 L
207 Ficus sycomorus 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
208 Ficus thonningii 0.432 http://globalspecies.org/ntaxa/911819 M
Average Ficus
209 Ficus vasta 0.441 (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Ficus) M
210 Filicium decipiens 0.960 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
211 Flacourtia indica 0.778 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
212 Flueggea virosa 0.770 Genus average M
213 Foeniculum vulgare 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
214 Galiniera saxifraga 0.399 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
215 Gardenia ternifolia 0.672 Genus average M
216 Gardenia volkensii 0.571 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
air dry
217 Grevillea robusta 0.530 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density
218 Grewia auriculifera 0.583 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
219 Grewia bicolor 0.456 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
220 Grewia ferruginea 0.583 Genus average M
221 Grewia flavescens 0.583 Genus average M
222 Grewia mollis 0.583 Genus average M
223 Grewia tembensis 0.583 Genus average M
224 Grewia tenax 0.583 Genus average M
225 Grewia trichocarpa 0.583 Genus average M
226 Grewia villosa 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Hageni
227 Hagenia abyssinica 0.591 a_abyssinica M
air dry
228 Hagenia abyssinica 0.560 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
229 Halleria lucida 0.715 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
Haplocoelum
230 foliolosum 0.788 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
231 Heteromorpha trifoliata 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
232 Hildebrandtia africana 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
233 Hippocratae africana 0.876 H. maingayi L
Hippocratea
234 macrophylla 0.876 H. maingayi L
235 Hippocratea pallens 0.876 H. maingayi L
236 Hypericum revolutum 0.726 Genus average M
237 Ilex mitis 0.466 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
238 Indigofera garekeana 0.580 Average of tropical Africa L
239 Jasminum abyssinicum 0.580 Average of tropical Africa L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Juniperu
240 Juniperus procera 0.628 s M
241 Juniperus procera 0.540 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H air dry
 72

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
density]
242 Justicia schimperiana 0.580 Average of tropical Africa L
243 Kigelia eethopun 0.661 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
244 Kirkia burgeri 0.661 >> M
245 Lannea fruticosa 0.515 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
246 Lannea schimperi 0.515 Genus average M
247 Lannea stuhlmannii 0.515 >> M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Lannea
248 Lannea welwitschii 0.405 _welwitschii M
249 Lantana trifolia 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
Lecaniodiscus
250 fraxinifolius 0.405 >> L
Lecaniodiscus
251 laxiflorus 0.405 >> L
Lepidotrichilia
252 volkensii 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
253 Lippia citriodora 0.700 Lippia mcvaughii L
254 Lippia javanica 0.700 >> L
255 Lippia spp. 0.700 >> L
Lonchocarpus
256 laxiflorus 0.761 genus average M
257 Lonicera johnstonii 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
258 Lycium europaeum 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
259 Macaranga capenesis 0.416 global data base M
Genus average
Macaranga (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Macara
260 kilimandscharica 0.404 nga) M
261 Maerua angolensis 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
262 Maerua calophylla 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
263 Maerua crassifolia 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
Genus average
264 Maesa lanceolata 0.676 (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
265 Magnifera indica 0.630 Wood density of trees of Uganda L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Malacant
266 Malacantha alnifolia 0.450 ha M
air dry
267 Manilkara butugi 0.880 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
268 Manilkora butugi 0.953 Average Genus, Africa M
Genus
average(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/
269 Maytenus addat 0.713 Maytenus) M
Genus
average(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/
270 Maytenus arbutifolia 0.713 Maytenus) M
Genus
average(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/
271 Maytenus auriculifera 0.713 Maytenus) M
272 Maytenus gracilipes 0.713 Average Genus, Africa M
273 Maytenus heterophylla 0.495 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
274 Maytenus ovatus 0.403 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
275 Maytenus senegalensis 0.713 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
276 Maytenus undatus 0.732 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
277 Melacantha alnifolia 0.620 Average Genus, Africa M
278 Melia azedarach 0.463 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
 73

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
Milicia excelsa 0.570 air dry
279 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
280 Millettia ferruginea 0.738 Average Millettia, Africa M
Average, Africa
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Mimuso
281 Mimusops kummel 0.856 ps) M
Mimusops kummel 0.880 air dry
282 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
283 Mimusops kummel 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
284 Moringa oleifera 0.262 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
285 Moringa stenopetala 0.262 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
286 Morus alba 0.622 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Morus_
287 Morus mesozygia 0.722 mesozygia M
Morus mesozygia 0.690 air dry
288 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
289 Myenus reticulata 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
290 Myrica salicifolia 0.618 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
291 Myrsine africana 0.721 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
292 Myrsine melanophloeos 0.732 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species M
Mystroxylon
293 aethiopicum 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
294 Nuxia congesta 0.512 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
295 Ocotea kenyensis 0.545 Genus average M
Ocotea kenyensis 0.560 air dry
296 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H desnity
297 Ocotea viridis 0.545 Genus average M
298 Olea africana 0.590 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_c
299 Olea capensis 0.805 apensis M
Olea capensis 0.990 air dry
300 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_e
301 Olea europaea 0.807 uropaea M
302 Olea hochstetteri 0.800 Genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_e
303 Olea welwitschii 0.814 uropaea M
Olea welwitschii 0.820 air dry
304 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_e
305 Olinia rochetiana 0.768 uropaea M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_e
306 Olinia Usamberansis 0.825 uropaea M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Olea_e
307 Oncoba spinosa 0.647 uropaea M
308 Opilia campestris 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
Ormocarpum
309 mimosoides 0.742 Ormocarpum kirkii L
310 Osryia lanceolata 0.854 Osyris arborea L
311 Osyris compressa 0.854 Osyris arborea L
312 Osyris wightiana 0.854 >> L
 74

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
313 Otestegia steudneri 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
314 Oxyanthus sp. 0.525 Genus value M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Oxyant
315 Oxyanthus speciosus 0.525 hus_speciosus M
Oxytenanthera air dry
316 abyssinica 0.608 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
317 Ozoroa insignis 0.715 Ozoroa longipetiolata L
318 Ozoroa pulcherrima 0.715 >> L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Oxyant
319 Pappea capensis 0.883 hus_speciosus M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Oxyant
320 Persea americana 0.561 hus_speciosus M
321 Peterocarpus lucens 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
322 Piliostigma thonningii 0.371 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
Pinus patula 0.450 air dry
323 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
Pinus radiata 0.450 air dry
324 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Oxyant
325 Pistacia falcata 0.720 hus_speciosus M
326 Pistacia lentiscus 0.720 Genus average M
Genus average
Pittosporum (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pittosp
327 abyssinicum 0.645 orum_abyssinicum) M
Pittosporum http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Oxyant air dry
328 viridiflorum 0.633 hus_speciosus M density]
Genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Podocar
329 Podocarpus falcatus 0.523 pus) M
Podocarpus falcatus 0.520 air dry
330 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Polysci
331 Polyscias ferruginea 0.286 as_ferruginea M
Polyscias fulva air dry
332 0.440 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
333 Polyscious ferrogenia 0.38 Polyscias nodosa L
Pouteria adolfi- air dry
334 friederici 0.600 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
Genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouter
335 Pouteria abyssinica 0.711 ia) M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouteri
336 Pouteria altissima 0.442 a_altissima M
Average Genus
337 Premna schimperi 0.658 (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Premna) M
Prosopis juliflora air dry
338 0.827 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
339 Protea gaguedi 0.663 Protea angolensis L
Prunus africana air dry
340 0.850 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
Genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouter
341 Prunus persica 0.588 ia) M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouteri
342 Pseudocedrela kotschyi 0.621 a_altissima M
 75

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
Genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouter
343 Psidium guajava 0.859 ia) M
Genus average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouter
344 Psydrax schimperiana 0.743 ia) M
345 Pterolobium stellatum 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
346 Rabus steudneri 0.58 Average of tropical Africa L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Pouteri
347 Rapanea melanophixas 0.732 a_altissima M
348 Rapanea simensis 0.722 genus average L
349 Rhamnus prinoides 0.579 genus average L
350 Rhamnus sp. 0.579 Genus average L
351 Rhinorea friisii 0.689 R. ferruginea L
352 Rhinorea laxiflora 0.689 R. ferruginea L
353 Rhoicissus tridentala 0.538 R. revoilii L
354 Rhus glutinosa 0.620 genus average M
355 Rhus natalensis 0.620 genus average M
356 Rhus retinorrhoea 0.620 genus average M
357 Rhus vulgaris 0.620 genus average M
Rothmania
358 urcelliformis 0.642 Africa (extratropical): global database L
359 Rothmannia whitfieldii 0.745 R. Fischeri: global database L
360 Rubus steudneri 0.350 Rubus alceifolius: global database L
361 Rumex nervousus 0.58 Average of tropical Africa M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Sapium
362 Salix subserata 0.525 _ellipticum M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Sapium
363 Sapium ellipticum 0.576 _ellipticum M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
364 Schefflera abyssinica 0.405 era_abyssinica M
365 Schefflera abyssinica 0.491 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
366 Schefflera volkensii 0.405 era_abyssinica M
367 Scherebera alata 0.790 Uganda data M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
368 Sclerocarya birrea 0.515 era_abyssinica M
Securidaca http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
369 longepedunculata 0.880 era_abyssinica M
370 Securindaca virosa 0.880 Securidaca longepedunculata L
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
371 Senna singueana 0.706 era_abyssinica M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
372 Sideroxylon oxyacantha 0.715 era_abyssinica M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
373 Sideroxylon sp. 0.715 era_abyssinica M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
374 Solanum incanum 0.428 era_abyssinica M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
375 Spathodea nilotica 0.504 era_abyssinica M
376 Steganotaenia 0.370 Uganda data M
 76

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
araliacea

377 Sterculia africana 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H

http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
378 Sterculia setigera 0.320 era_abyssinica M
Stereospermum
379 kunthianum 0.741 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Scheffl
380 Strychnos innocua 0.870 era_abyssinica M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Strychno
381 Strychnos mitis 0.733 s M
382 Strychnos spinosa 0.733 genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Syzygiu
383 Syzygium guineense 0.712 m M
Syzygium guineense air dry
384 0.740 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
385 Tamarindus indica 0.624 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
386 Tapura fisherii 0.660 Genus average: global database M
387 Teclea nobilis 0.798 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Teclea M
388 Teclea simplicifolia 0.798 Teclea nobilis L
389 Terminalia laxiflora 0.654 genus average M
Average of genus
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Termina
390 Terminalia brownii 0.654 lia) M
391 Terminalia brownii 0.495 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
392 Terminalia laxiflora 0.574 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
393 Terminalia macroptera 0.819 http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Teclea M
394 Terminalia mollis 0.654 genus average M
395 Terminalia prundioides 0.654 genus average M
Terminalia
396 schimperiana 0.654 genus average M
397 Terminalia sopinos 0.654 genus average M
398 Thunbergia alata 0.640 Uganda data M
399 Toddalia asiatica 0.798 Toddalia nobilis L
400 Trema guineensis 0.366 genus average M
401 Trema orientalis 0.366 genus average M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Trichili
402 Trichilea prieuriana 0.647 a_prieuriana M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Trichili
403 Trichilia dregeana 0.482 a_prieuriana M
Trichilia http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Trichili
404 madagascariense 0.622 a M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Trichili
405 Trichilia pouerianu 0.622 a M
406 Trichocladus ellipticus 0.640 Uganda data M
Trilepisium http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Trilepis
407 madagariense 0.499 ium_madagariense M
Trilepisium
408 madagascariense 0.560 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H
average of genus air dry
409 Urera hypselodendron 0.324 (http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Urera) M density
 77

Basic Density Data

No Scientific name (g/cm3) Reference quality* Remark
410 Vepris dainellii 0.700 Vepris undulate L
average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Vernoni
411 Vernonia amygdalina 0.413 a) M
average
(http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/genus/Vernoni
412 Vernonia auriclifera 0.413 a) M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Warbur
413 Warburgia ugandensis 0.865 gia_ugandensis M
Warburgia ugandensis air dry
414 0.770 Getachew Desalegn et al., 2012 H density]
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Warbur
415 Ximenia americana 0.867 gia_ugandensis M
416 Ximenia caffra 0.812 genus average M
Zanthoxylum http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Warbur
417 chalybeum 0.629 gia_ugandensis M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Warbur
418 Ziziphus mauritania 0.711 gia_ugandensis M
http://db.worldagroforestry.org//wd/species/Warbur
419 Ziziphus mucronata 0.758 gia_ugandensis M
420 Ziziphus spina-christi 0.482 Vreugdenhil et al., 2012 H
* data quality refers to author’s personal judgement of the goodness of the woo density value depending on whether they are locally relevant or
not. L = low; M = medium and H = high quality.