National forest assessments (NFAs) are investments of human and financial resources that need to be founded on a clear mandate by national policy and decision makers just as any national expense needs to be justified.
NFAs generate a data base that is via analysis and interpretation converted into information for specific target groups. Among these target groups are national policy and decision makers in forestry and related fields but also research scientists, the interested public in general and interested parties are also beyond the national boundaries, for example the international processes.
However, the major direct addressee of the information generated by NFAs are national and sub-national policy makers who are expected to use that information to improve upon their natural resource related policy. The short-term and long-term demand of information needs, in the ideal case, be formulated and explicitly expressed in order for the inventory planners to be able to respond specifically to it. That is, what we may call a demand-driven NFA. In fact, a comprehensive list of expected outputs of an NFA, composed by the relevant policy makers themselves, is rarely the basis for NFA planning. Rather, a general, and some times diffuse demand is expressed that leaves the NFA planners to respond to that at their best knowledge and ability.
According to experts of the NFP facility, a successful policy process builds on three major elements
1. Good information available which means timely information that is focussed, reliable, comparable and easy to understand and defend;
2. Efficient coordination which means that it is visibly lead by the national government, implemented by the politicians and linked to related sectors; and
3. Participatory mechanism which means that all interested groups and stakeholders are duly involved.
In this context, it becomes obvious that NFAs and broader integrated assessments play a basic and relevant role
The working group’s task was to analyse the policy making processes, and specify the information requested at the stage of planning, monitoring, evaluating and adjusting the forestry and livelihood policies, and the relation with national forestry programmes in countries. Objectives were to define the type of information requested at the different stages of policy development, to analyse which of this information can be collected through NFA and ILUA and eventually to identify mechanisms and strategies of an efficient communication and dissemination of information.
Inventories can, in principle, collect any data on forest and other resources. The limitations are defined by the concrete mission, the human, financial and time resources.
The following categories of data are typically collected
- Data on the biophysical resource itself, typically on the state of the resource and, where possible, also on the dynamics. In the case of a forest assessment, this includes, forest area by forest type, forest condition, species composition, commercial timber growing stock, aboveground biomass and carbon.
These data are typically collected by typical forest inventory field measurements.
- Data on the human intervention to the biophysical resource. In the case of forest assessments that would typically include wood removals (legal and illegal), the state of tree plantations and secondary forests, non-wood forest products, and also indirect indicators of human intervention like infrastructure for logging operations.
These data are collected in part by field measurements and in part by interviews.
- Data on the role that the resource plays for the livelihoods. In the case of forest assessments that of the forest users and forest owners.
These data are mostly collected by interviews with those who live of the forest resource.
- Data on variables from neighbouring sectors that bear relevance for the resource under consideration. In the case of forest assessments it may be of interest to record also the land uses adjacent to the forest areas as this may exert a direct impact on the forest condition.
These data are collected in part by field measurements and in part by interviews.
Collection of data that is not in immediate demand or of direct interest can hardly be justified in an ad hoc manner. However, such data may be interesting for future use when new issues are upcoming. To a certain extent, therefore, it can be justified to also collect data whose utility is not immediately obvious. It is then a political (or research need based) decision whether such variables of “anticipated interest” are to be included into the assessment or not. A typical example for such observations is taking terrestrial photographs of the sample plots. In many cases, this is done for documentation purposes without a clear idea of how to analyse this data. It may, however, prove extremely useful at later points in time when, for example, the forest or landscape structure is to be analysed along variables that can be extracted from these photographs.
1. Who needs the forestry information (NFA and ILUA)
The crucial question of all inventory and assessment work is “who needs what” (and “why”).
It is the national context which determines who the actual users are and how they can possibly benefit from an NFA. A context analysis needs to be undertaken in which it is being identified what the actual questions are and to which of them an NFA can reasonably provide answers. Naturally linked to these questions are then the “users of the information” who are in demand of those answers and who will use the answers as one element for the development of criteria in decision making.
Among the users are policy makers from the forestry and related sectors, but also NGOs, donor agencies, development partners, research and teaching institutions, and the general public. However, there is a different degree of need and demand. National level information is strategic in nature and it is mainly those users who think and plan in terms of large geographical units (the entire country or sub-regions thereof) who are in most direct demand of that information.
2. What is information needed for?
Information is needed for general support of public discussions about the development of the forest and natural resource, and in concrete terms information is needed for the formulation of policies and strategies related to the forest resource. This is not restricted to forest policy alone, but may well extend into related sectors. In anz case, forest policy is embedded in the general national policy and interlinked with other sectoral policies.
The very concrete need for the information is derived from the specific questions that result from the national policy processes.
As a generalized statement, the information as provided from NFAs is needed for land use policies, planning and strategy development across sectors for
sustainable development,
allocation of public funds,
land tenure issues,
estimation of investment returns,
economic development,
livelihoods evaluation,
monitoring policy impacts.
3. What are the specifications of the information?
The information demanded from the assessment process needs to follow the thematic specifications that derive from the questions formulated by the respective policy processes.
This is specific for the particular situation in which the assessment is being undertaken.
Specifications take typically into account
Describing the state but seeking to capture trends where possible;
Present aspects of spatial distribution to the extent possible. This can be achieved usually only by an adequate utilization of remote sensing imagery. The relatively low intensity field sampling does not allow to provide spatially explicit analysis;
Provide information on the actual and potential production of forest.
4. How information should be presented/ packaged/disseminated, e.g.: internet, project reports, CDs, newsletters, policy briefs, booklets, journals, tv, radio, etc.
5. Forest information services: How should these services generate information? How to make sure that the generated information will create the intended impact?
This is one of the probably most relevant points in a NFA. Usually, a forest inventory project ends by producing and submitting the report.
However, it must be perceived as an important and integral component of an inventory that the results are published and disseminated, discussed and promoted; if possible in a public and controversial manner. To be able to strongly defend the results, however, methodological soundness and a concise summarizing of the main findings is essential.
Dissemination and promotion of the results is typically not done by the forest inventory experts, but by professional communication experts. They should be integrated already in the preparation of the documents to be disseminated. Ideally, this task is being assumed by an officer who maintains the contacts to the press. If an “analysis unit” exists, the proper processing, formatting and framing of “messages” to be published will be a task of that unit.
The documents to be released must directly and in a brief concise manner respond to the major questions and concerns (policy briefs) that were expressed before the inventory itself had been launched. These documents may include a ‘what if/so what’ analysis.
6. Who should have access to the raw data set, e.g. for analyses purposes?
8. What should be the level of access to the processed/analysed data?
Data and information produced by an NFA must not be treated as secret or confidential. It is actually a public good. Restrictions on the basis of national data protection lows, however, may apply when it comes to publishing geo-referenced information.
The countries need to define the their own policy on data access. However, as a guiding principle, it should be in the interest of the country to make use of the data and information to a maximum; meaning that processed and aggregated data should be in the public domain. Geo-referenced raw data is usually critical because personal rights of land owners may be violated.
Research institutions should have access to the raw data upon application (and maybe upon presentation of a research plan) when committing themselves to respect the confidentiality of the data. It is deemed important that NFA data are being used for research purposes because that underlines the overall usefulness of the information for various purposes also outside direct policy making.
7. Who has the responsibility for maintenance and updating of data (FD, FAO or others)?
NFAs are country processes and projects. Consequently, data are in the ownership of the country and must be managed and maintained in the corresponding institutions. However, FAO being involved in the process should offer to serve as a backup as experience shows that data can disappear rapidly – mainly as a result of people being transferred to other positions and of the accompanying loss of institutional knowledge.
Pre-processed and aggregated data should, where possible, be integrated into the system of national statistics.
Updating of NFA information implies that the NFA process had been adopted to be a permanent process. It is in the country´s responsibility to pursue this update. FAO may play a facilitating role in that.
9. What role should FAO play as a neutral partner?
FAOs role should be a combined role of advisor, backstopper and facilitator. It is acknowledged that the NFA process needs some input in the initial phase, in particular when it comes to formulate the key questions, to identify the information requirements and to get the NFA process established within the country’s institutional landscape.
In the initial phase FAO should also act, where necessary, as a source of seed funding and provide technical assistance. Also, infrastructure services (e.g. website facilities) may be offered.
However, the most relevant input from FAO into the NFA process should be that of facilitating experience and expertise by means of the existing networks.
10. What means and tools are required to make information management a lasting exercise?
Dedicated commitment of the national institutions and policy makers is the single most important prerequisite to make the NFA process a lasting exercise. This commitment is hardly reached by a technical inventory project only. It requires a much longer process of confidence building and joint efforts in developing national policies that do not only serve the forest and natural resource but simultaneously and above all the interest of the country, its citicens and its overall developmenet.
Institutionalization of the NFA process is the organizational outcome of that commitment. However, that is usually a long and complex procedure. Institutionalization means that the NFA has a structure which is independent of the actual government and of single influential actors. And that means that there must be a general legal basis to establish a NFA unit within, for example, the forestry department.
11. Why some NFAs have greater impact than others? Specify factors that drive the variation in outcomes
The differences in impact of different NFA can not be conclusively analysed. Corresponding scientific studies are not there. Only hypothesis about it may be generate – while FAO is encouraged to pursue studying this aspect in more depth based on experiences from already completed NFAs.
The impact will be greatest if the NFA does directly respond to clear questions formulated from national policy processes, i.e. if it is an explicitly demand driven exercise. On the contrary, a technique-dirven or merely mission-driven assessment is expected to have only incidental impact.
The impact will be greatest if the resulting policy briefs are really focused and handed in to the right actors at the right moment.
The policy briefs should not only comprehensively respond to the questions asked, they should contain visionary and strategic elements.
National Forest Assessments (NFA) collect data to generate information and enhance knowledge on the forest resource on national scale. By doing so, NFAs respond to demands from various interested groups, such as policy and decision makers, researchers, NGOs and the interested public. While all interested groups have their generic interest in the information provided, NFAs do specifically aim at improving national forest related policies. This is being achieved directly by providing tailored information to policy and decision makers and indirectly by informing other stakeholders and interested groups such as NGOS, researchers and the general public.
The effect which improved information exerts on policy decision making is not easy to predict. Nor is it easy to define the exact quantity and quality of information that is required for optimal decision making on national level – whatever the definition of “optimal decision making” might be. The link between information quantity/quality and decision quality is largely unexplored and awaits coverage by scientific studies. Meanwhile, it is generally assumed and accepted that better information supports reaching better decisions. This is the general framework in which NFAs operate.
NFAs have, therefore, the challenging task to define their overall methodology in such a way that the specific demands of policy decision makers are sufficiently met - be they expressed explicitly or assumed implicitly - and that potential other expectations are also taken into respect.
Most planners of forest inventories have made the experience that it is difficult to clearly find out the data and information needs of decision makers before the inventory is being done. Frequently, the demand is most explicitly expressed only at the moment when the results are presented. As a consequence, at least to some extent, inventory planners do have the challenging task to anticipate potential expectations of decision makers. When attempting to find out about the data and information needs, it is helpful to have an example of another NFA report for illustration of what an NFA is able to achieve – and what not.
When defining methodological elements of an NFA as a response to shifting policy demands, it is necessary to more specifically describe the assumed changes in policy demands. The following points have been identified where some of these „shifting policy demands” are actually ongoing processes.
a. The scope of forest assessments is becoming wider and more complex in several respects:
- Focus on changes:
Changes and trends are becoming more relevant than state assessments and descriptions. That makes permanent assessments becoming more and more important, which in turn imposes high expectations on the organization and institutionalization of the assessment: permanent assessment systems require long-term and uninterrupted commitment.
- Integrating the “human dimension”:
The subject-matter focus is not any more on the biophysical resource only, but including more and more aspects of services, use and management of the resource; that is, social, cultural and socio-economic variables come in and the relationship “people and forest” is in the centre of the studies.
- Expanding to other resources:
While forest and tree resources play an important role in NFAs, the forest resource is more and more seen in the context of other resources and land uses (economic view) and in the context of other ecosystems and land covers (ecological view). As a consequence, NFA projects expand into other land uses than forest and open, therefore, the possibility to also integrate the collection of specific information for and on these lands.
- From inventory to assessment/evaluation:
It is more and more seen that the mere generation of information - be it as good and useful as it be – is by far not sufficient to achieve that this information is used and taken up to a full extent. It must be a generic task of NFAs to further process the information towards an assessment.
b. Cross cutting / overarching issues are gaining more and more relevance in the context of forest assessments. As forests are landscape elements that play a crucial role in practically all ecological and economic processes that deal with the utilization, management of renewable natural resources, forest information is crucial also in the context of biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and climate change, poverty alleviation, gender issues, desertification. Related international and national processes are increasingly interested in information about status and changes of the forest resource.
This demand is currently in place and is expected to become even more important.
c. It is to be expected that policy demands and information needs change and evolve rapidly and can be very specific. NFAs need to respond to that with a flexible methodology.
d. It is some times expected that NFAs also provide useful information for smaller reporting units such as municipalities. While this is largely founded on a misinterpretation of what national forest assessments are aiming at, it is important to take these expectations and demands into consideration and develop methodological responses.
When addressing the methodology of national forest assessments, one usually tends to think immediately in terms of points like statistical sampling, field implementation and the integration of remote sensing and field data. However, as the description of the shifting policy demands has made clear, NFAs are complex undertakings that have many more methodological elements that need to be considered.
Working Group 2 has put together the following list and sees - among others but above all – the following elements in an NFA project the need attention when improvement and streamlining of the methodology and overall strategy is an issue.
Many, but not all, of these elements were addressed in the Terms of Reference of Working Group 2 and are dealt with in the following chapter in more detail; however, the results can not be exhaustive as the working group sessions were about 1 day only.
The requirement of potential improvement of methodology refers to the following methodological elements
a. Methodology/strategy to identify data and information gaps and the corresponding data and information needs.
b. Methodology/strategy to define objectives and expected outputs in a workable manner.
c. Methodology/strategy to allocate the project budget in an efficient manner so that the project can be smoothly implemented.
d. Methodology/strategy of institutionalization of the NFA process under different country conditions.
e. Methodology of the survey, including sampling and response design, and identification of sources of information to be used.
f. Methodology/strategy of organizational planning, including staff recruitment, training, field manual writing.
g. Methodology/strategy of inventory implementation and data collection.
h. Methodology of data analysis and scenario development.
i. Methodology of reporting.
j. Methodology/strategy of dissemination/communication.
k. Methodology of analysis of adoption of the assessment results in policy decision making.
1. Scope of the NFA/ILUA:
It is considered a considerable progress in the development of the NFAs that FAO does offer the option to advise the countries either how to set up an NFA or how to expand an NFA toward other resources and land uses.
It is expected that the interest of countries to adopt the assessment project is increased by the choice to have a focused NFA or a wider assessment.
The wider the scope, however, the more complex becomes the project and the broader the expertise that is required.
It is, therefore, recommended to invest sufficient time and efforts to clearly identify and spell out explicitly the information demand of the policy and decision makers. Be it an NFA or a broader assessment, the project needs in any case to be tailored and adapted to the national requirements and priorities. This is a process in which not only forest inventory expertise is required but above all a sound knowledge and sense of appreciation of the national policies in forestry and related fields.
A close linkage to the National Forest Program Facility or other national policy processes will facilitate a straightforward definition of scope and objectives. Where, of course, the result of these efforts may also be that it is found that the current situation or time is not good for the establishment of an NFA and that it should be postponed.
2. Implementation method e.g. participatory, national leadership, capacity building
Country ownership of the NFA project is a precondition for sustainability of the project and long-term success. The NFA must rely on collaboration and partnership at national level. A comprehensive consultation process at each stage of the project is required, where the parties to be consulted depend on the defined scope of the project.
In most countries, a systematic expertise in large area assessments of natural resources needs to be built up. Capacity building and capacity maintenance plays a central role here, where “capacity” refers to all project stages like planning, sampling statistics, field survey, remote sensing image processing, data processing and analysis, reporting, dissemination, … Capacity building needs to aim at those national experts that will have a longer professional perspective in the NFA; in the optimal case this is the staff of a specific organizational unit in which the NFA is anchored.
Also the universities and the technical forestry schools should play a prominent role in capacity building where these institutions may have twofold roles
(1) participate as resource persons in the immediate training
(2) integrate techniques of large area forest and natural resources assessments into the academic curricula, thus providing a long term capacity building among young professionals..
The government should assign a responsible party (for example within the forestry institutions) to lead and coordinate the NFA process. This coordination should be committed to the NFA as a long-term process and to collaborations with other partners as required by the specific objectives of the assessment.
3. Make NFA a lasting programme in the countries (institutionalisation):
NFAs should not be a one-shot exercise but be part of a permanent policy process. Only few developing countries have an institutionalized permanent unit within the forestry department that deals with the monitoring and assessment of the forest resource on a regular basis.
To foster institutionalisation of the NFA requires to identify key actors with appropriate technical understanding and good political standing. In this context again, a linkage to the NFP facility or to other national policy processes is seen as a must.
Institutionalisation requires adequate human and financial resources, the involvement of all interested parties and at the end the legal basis for the establishment of a new technical unit or a regulation which makes the NFA part of the responsibilities of an existing technical unit. A major argument in favour of the institutionalisation is the right of the general public to be informed at a regular basis about the state and development of the natural resources of the country: in many countries the livelihood of many people depend directly on the forest resource, in other countries it is mainly the environmental and recreational services that are of interest.
In any case, institutionalisation requires to reach a national consensus on the relevance of the NFA; all important stakeholders need to be involved in that process.
4. Sampling design(s): tree variables, socio-economic, other natural resources e.g. crop, livestock, etc
The assessment, be it NFA or expanded toward an ILUA, will be based on a set of data sources which vary from country to country according to availability, and according to the different set of goals and objectives. Evaluation of earlier inventories, remote sensing imagery and maps will be important data sources.
Field data is likely to be a major source of information in all projects and there is the need to develop efficient sampling strategies. It is not reasonable to attempt to develop an optimal sampling strategy for all possible situations. Only some general guiding principles can be touched upon here.
FAO should consider to compile these principles in a more comprehensive manner in a guidelines document which can also serve as background material for NFA capacity building.
Stratification is a powerful variance reduction strategy in large area forest assessments if strata can be identified that are sufficiently different with respect to their mean values of the major target variables. Stratification has been repeatedly discussed in the context of NFAs. The major arguments are briefly listed:
- Stratification should only be envisaged as an option, if stratification criteria are clear and obvious; a good example is Ecuador, where two strata are obvious: the Amazonian region and the rest of the country.
- The number of strata should be low, not more than 3 or 4, so that sample size per stratum does not become too small.
- Stratification criteria must be stable over time so that follow-up assessments may reasonably follow the same stratification (examples: ecological zones, physiographic zones; administrative boundaries can change more easily and should not be used)
The sampling and plot design as developed by FAO for the NFAs is a state-of-the-art sampling strategy for large area inventories of forest resources and has been proven in the finished and ongoing NFAs. It should continue to be the basic design from which modifications and adaptations to specific country situations are made (systematic square grid either on a topographic grid or the lat-loin grid, with cluster sample plots consisting of four elongated rectangular sub-plots with micro-plots for smaller trees and regeneration).
If the NFA is to be expanded and data on more resources to be collected the sampling should nevertheless base on the same grid of sample points. It would be very complicated to carry out different sampling studies (for example on different grids) for different target objects; then, it would not be an “integrated assessment” any more.
It is recognized and acknowledged that it is a challenge to integrate the different target objects of an integrated assessment into one and the same sampling strategy. Nevertheless, all observations should be made on the same sample points of the one sample grid. Sub-sampling would be an option, though, where not all variables are observed at all sample points.
The major methodological development work is seen in the response design; that is in the definition how the measurements are going to be taken at the selected sample points. The sub-plots for tree observations are defined and proven in NFAs in various countries. The integration of household surveys requires defining how, from a selected sample point, one or a set of households is determined to be part of the sample. The same considerations need to be done for any other additional target object.
Methodological rigour must always govern the definition of the sampling strategy; subjective elements need to be let out. They invalidate the statistical analysis and may put the credibility of the entire study at risk.
5. Remote sensing
In most large area forest inventories, remote sensing imagery is employed in one or the other way. The most basic application is to use recent imagery for orientation in the field, for example in the absence of up-to-date topographic maps.
Then, remote sensing imagery may be used for a wall-to-wall mapping of the forest resource and land use pattern, which makes a valuable product for the marketing of a large area forest inventory.
One methodological option is to use remote sensing imagery also on a sampling basis: one could, for example, establish air photo sample plots of a defined size (say, 3km x 3km) centered around the field sample plots; this allows a context analysis and improvement of area estimations.
The methodologically most advanced application of remote sensing imagery involves modelling and small area estimation: in combination with the field observations on sample basis, the imagery is used to generate predictions of target variables for any region within the images where no field sample plots are. Various techniques are used for that, including geostatistical approaches and the kNN-technique. However, for these approaches to yield sufficiently reliable predictions, a denser sample grid is required than that which is usually planned for in an NFA under the currently proposed design.
However, an NFA may be able to identify sub-regions where more detailed studies need to take place (“hot-spots”). The NFA team will then have the experience and expertise to advise on the design of those specific studies.
Remote sensing imagery can be used as information source where tracts are not accessible. However, the information content is limited and most of the variables than are being observed in the field can not be retrieved from the imagery.
Remote sensing imagery should be used wherever possible (and available), to improve the area estimations of forest and land use classes. Area estimates can also be done from the field sample only, but remote sensing imagery based estimates are more precise; in addition, from remote sensing imagery additional products and analyses can be derived, such as maps, detailed change analysis including change matrix analysis, and analysis of forest and landscape fragmentation.
Major practical points are the cost and availability of imagery and the availability of expertise and technical equipment. In some cases, recent imagery may be available at low or no cost from other projects. That is an optimal situation.
Currently, the failure of Landsat 7 ETM+ is a major limit for all vegetation and land use mapping. Many other products are available such as SPOT, Aster, IRS, and very high resolution imagery (Quickbird, Ikonos). The latter carry cost which is probably prohibitive for application in NFAs; also, there is always the risk that the imagery, though ordered in time and ahead, will not be devlivered in due time.
And airborne products play an increasing role (digital cameras, LIDAR, standard aerial photography). In some countries, aerial photographs can be ordered at reasonable cost; that however, refers to sub-regions and certainly not to an entire country.
Users should be aware of strengths and limitations of remote sensing technology. Remote sensing is, for example, a generally valuable tool for mapping forest / non-forest. If it comes to distinguish different forest types, however, or different land use classes with tree cover (agroforestry), then it becomes a challenge and many possibilities for confusions exist.
Used in a proper way, remote sensing is a powerful and efficient tool for various purposes.
6. Scope of field data (variables)
NFAs have a fairly clearly defined set of variables of which observations are gathered. But even in NFAs there is still space for expansion: for the tree resource outside the forest (TOF), for example, it will be interesting not only to collect data on the growing stock, but also on its management.
If an expansion of the scope of NFAs toward more comprehensive integrated assessments such as ILUAs is planned, then this should be done in consultation with sectoral stakeholders. Existing and available information, information needs and gaps must to be identified as are policy priorities.
Broadening the scope to other land uses (ILUA) allows addressing cross-cutting issues and makes the results probably more interesting for a wider audience. An ILUA can possibly be more usable and relevant than only NFA information in the context, for example, of poverty alleviation.
However it should be strictly observed to focus on priority areas. There is always the risk that the data collection teams are overloaded with measurements and observations of variables which will never be analysed.
An expansion of the scope of NFAs and an increase in the number of “target objects” and variables has various implications:
- As addressed in the preceding point, the plot design needs to be adjusted in such a manner that the selection of all target objects can be done on statistical grounds and measurements / observations been taken.
- Depending on type and number of additional variables, it might be necessary to contract specialists to go out with the field teams. This can be a major challenge as such experts are not necessarily easily available – and can be costly.
- It should be taken into account from the outset that observing more variables causes also more analysis and more reporting work to be done. This is frequently not sufficiently observed and may lead to the situation that at the end there are no resources any more to do a proper assessment of those variables.
7. Information quality
Large area forest and natural resource assessments provide data and information predominantly for national policy making. Reference and reporting unit is the entire country or maybe, larger sub-national units.
No wrong expectation should be raised regarding information quality and precision. It must be understood that target precision is defined for the national level and that this precision will go down considerably when estimations for smaller reporting units are calculated. Also, precision is different for different variables. Rare events will be estimated with lesser precision than abundant elements.
As guidance, one should strive for e relative standard error of the estimation of area and growing stock in NFAs of ideally 5% at the national level; in some cases, up to 10% is acceptable, but experience shows that standard errors of more than 10% generate doubts on the side of the decision makers, whether the study is trustworthy or not.
It is extremely difficult to define the right standard error / precision which should be the target. Usually, experiences from other countries will serve as a basis for that decision.
An interesting point in this context is that most decision makers are not clear about the concrete meaning and concept of statistical precision and that the relationship between precision and decision quality is all but clear. Nonetheless, a decent statistical precision (in the order of magnitude as indicated above) is an extremely important factor that helps generating credibility.
Methodological soundness is of utmost importance. An NFA is easily discredited in its completeness by malevolent experts if methodological errors are becoming obvious. This must be avoided.
Actually, FAO can play a role in the context of quality assurance by offering to the country NFA teams that the methodology applied can be scrutinized by a team of experts of FAO or a team facilitated by FAO.
8. Information services: database, data processing, information packaging and dissemination
In the ideal case, the table of contents is being developed as a guideline as early as possible in the NFA process, definitively before data processing and information packaging; actually the table of contents should reflect directly the objectives and expected outputs as defined in early stages of the process.
It is important that the information generated is being disseminated in appropriate format through appropriate channels. This is considered an extremely important task. The assessment does not end with the writing of the report.
Wherever possible and to the extent possible, the information should be made available to the public, and the raw data be made available to the research community. In that context, obviously, access rights need to be cleared for raw (georeferenced or not-georeferenced), aggregated, processed and analysed data/information.
Country ownership and long term commitment are considered important elements of an NFA process. Sustainability of data and information management is an important element of that. A powerful and stable database that can be easily queried supports this. It may be a role for FAO to provide a structure or template for such a database; although it is acknowledged that the technical options are so manifold and the situations in the countries so different that this is not in all cases helpful.
9. Analysis options (topic added to the ToR by Working Group 2)
Data analysis derives immediately from the definition of objectives and expected outputs as defined in accordance with the expectations of policy and decision makers.
An additional analysis option are longer-term scenarios.
They do immediately serve the NFP process and policy decision making in general and need to be defined in collaboration with these.
However, scenario modelling can hardly be derived from the results of one NFA only. Various more input factors are required such as models and assumptions about growth and development of variables under consideration.
Scenario modelling is a typical analysis exercise that may be carried out in cooperation with a forest research institute or university.
National forest assessments are national projects which are ideally adopted in national ownership as a whole within the context of developing national forest and related policies. That implies that the projects is being carried out independently, at least in principle.
However, to get started with complex projects such as NFAs some external input may be required on various stages of planning and implementation. In order to not contradict with the overarching philosophy of assigning NFAs into national ownership, this external input must be well focussed, limited in terms of resources (time and money) and restricted to a catalytic function.
1. Role of FAO in promoting NFI/NFA in countries lacking capacity and information
General knowledge about NFAs and their potential products and usefulness is not necessarily present in all countries. A minimum of information is required to fulfill national and international information needs on the forest resource, other wooded land and the tree resource outside the forest. The information needs for international reporting originates from reporting commitments to international processes such as GFRA, C&I, ITTO and various others.
NFAs generate at least a part of the required information for national decision making and for international reporting commitments. This potential of NFAs can be illustrated by examples from other countries or by hypothetical examples from within the same country (if information X had been there, then decision Y might have been different), which would be a typical and basic advisory task.
It may be that NFAs are given a low priority only at national level either because of lack of knowledge about its potential or because of the lack of expertise to put it into place. There may also be a lack of ability or tradition to formulate information needs and data requirements.
A precondition to all external advising, however, is a corresponding political commitment at country level. If the basic understanding is not there that an NFA and the hard data and information that it produces is beneficial for policy and decision making, then any NFA process is put at risk from the very beginning. To find out about the right time to engage in an NFA may be a concerted analysis of NFA experts in the country and ongoing national policy processes and/or the NFP facility.
FAO’s primary role should remain in the early phases of a NFP process, it should be catalytic and help generating capacity at national level that leads finally to an independent implementation of most phases of the NFA process.
NFAs must be in entirely national processes and in national responsibility (including funding) is. It should be avoided that the advisory role of FAO is misinterpreted such that FAO is being perceived as project leader and a funding source. It is, however, acknowledged that occasionally it may be necessary to launch and start out NFA processes as projects with e certain external budget.
The advisory role of FAO should not be limited to technical issues of planning and implementing an NFA, which is also relevant and needs to be addressed in corresponding training activities. It is probably even more important to advise in strategies how to achieve national ownership of the NFA process, how to establish an NFA as a long term institution in the country, and, in general, how to achieve lasting political commitment. This requires aiming high and convincing high level politicians. FAO with its existing networks and communication channels may play in many countries an important role in that context.
Based on the experience of the ongoing NFA processes, the FAO NFA team could make expert recommendations on minimum requirements to COFO / regional forestry commissions.
2. Promoting new approach to NFA/ILUA
This discussion point is closely linked to discussion point 1: FAO may assist and advise in the process of formulating questions and expressing concrete data and information requirements. This is ideally done in cooperation and consultation with national processes in forest policy and related sectors.
Only as a result of this identification of key questions and information requirements can be decided whether a country should go for an NFA or a broader assessment; where the broader assessment usually embraces an NFA and additional targets or land uses.
It is recognized that this is lesser a technical issue of how to design an assessment, but it is an intensive discussion and decision process of stakeholders and interested parties from the forestry and related sectors. If decided to carry out a broader assessment or an ILUA, the result will be a cross-sectoral approach that provides information on multiple resources to multiple users.
The role of FAO in this context may be that of a facilitator: facilitating workshops with NFA experts from other countries. FAO should not push the national counterparts in one or the other direction but provide the ground for developing own national criteria. Focus of FAOs advisory role should be (see discussion point 1) to strive to achieve national commitment and ownership - if it is found that an assessment is beneficial in the given policy context.
3. Role of FAO in countries with NFI/NFA programs: harmonization of methods and information framework, etc.
The NFA team at FAO has accumulated experience from various NFAs from various countries. As a consequence it is seen as a generic task of FAO to compile a set of principles for NFAs, which may include recommendations for standards, for example for data capture, data management, data analysis, quality control as well as reporting.
FAO should continue to be a forum for the exchange of experiences and for the further development of these standards in cooperation with country experts (networking). While standards are important as a starting point for the planning of NFS, it is obvious, however, that the actual NFA approach must be explicitly country-specific.
As a part of a harmonization process, FAO with their technical expertise should assist to develop approaches to identify differences and commonalities of NFAs and of agricultural censuses to prepare the ground for integrated assessments.
4. Networks: Encouraging regional knowledge networks; and
5. Networks: Developing and maintaining global knowledge network.
National Forest Assessments are complex tasks, which are in many countries new even to forestry experts. This has also to do with the fact that concept, techniques and products of large area forest inventories are usually not or not comprehensively enough on the agenda of the curricula of forest mensuration and forest inventory courses at universities and technical schools.
The national focal points of NFA need a forum or network that support them to develop their technical expertise and to share and discuss their own experiences.
FAO and its forestry technical units should play a role there in their capacity as technical advisors. The NFA process, however, will hardly develop towards a largely self-sustained process, if its advisory role is being continued in such a manner that it becomes a sort of default element in the national NFA. National, sub-regional and international network or communication fora are a means to foster exchange of ideas and experiences and to also build a “safety net” for technical inquiries from national focal points.
National networks support the NFA idea on a national basis and help making the project known within the country also among sectors. It is one of the natural tasks of the country focal point to start building that network as one of the early activities in NFA planning. It is actually a direct outcome of contacting potentially interested experts in the forestry and other sectors.
Regional and sub-regional networks foster the exchange between NFA projects in neighbouring countries that share similar overall conditions and challenges of implementation. Sub-regional networks make use of synergies that lead to an improved planning, optimized implementation and more focussed reporting. Such sub-national networks are actually beginning to gradually establish: NFA experts from countries where the inventory has been carried out assist countries in the region in setting up their own NFA. This activity is supported by FAOs TCDC project (Technical Cooperation between Developing Countries).
In addition regional could provide an excellent platform to exchange technical elements relevant for NFAs such as volume and biomass functions, methods to assess the tree resource outside the forest etc.
While a harmonization of methodology on international level is a major challenge, regional networks and regional exchange of experiences may lead to partial or complete harmonization on a sub-regional or regional level.
Knowledge exchange and joint capacity building / training courses are most easily feasible in regional and sub-regional networks.
It appears obvious that regional networks are the most important networks for a sustainable NFA process in the countries.
International networks facilitate contacts to international experts and are seen as an important element of NFA promotion. FAO is an important facilitator in that international networking. This current expert consultation is but one evidence that this network is yet in place.
However, it was stated that establishing regional and sub-regional networks is probably better supporting NFAs to become a lasting process.
An important question raised was related to the format of the networks. There are many different intensities of networks, from basic internet for a and information sharing via web-pages to fully administered networks with a coordination structure and some assigned or elected leadership. Formally established networks need professional administration and facilitation – and a budget. FAO may be requested to take a lead in this international networking but the country NFA-focal points should be encouraged to actively engage in it as well, for example through the search of sponsors for workshops with national, sub-regional, regional or international experts.
6. Suggestions on how to improve the relation in countries between NFP and NFA
The NFP facility is supporting national forest policy processes while the NFA process is generating up-to-date and relevant information that is one of the pillars on which rational policy making is founded; this refers to the decision making process, but also to the monitoring process. NFA information may, therefore, be important for periodical revision of the NFP.
In that sense, NFP and NFA are complementary. NFAs can be considered an integral element of NFPs. NFA/ILUA provide information to criteria and indicators and help to evaluating the success of the forest policy.
The NFP facility can support the NFA process in a highly efficient manner in various respects: the NFA depends on a clear formulation of the information requirements, it depends on an organizational and institutional structure that guarantees a smooth technical implementation, and it needs contacts to other sectors to find out whether an NFA or an ILUA or something in between is required. In all these points, the NFP facility with its national policy experience can efficiently support.
FAO should actively bring the NFP facility and the NFA process together and see it as one single exercise wherever the two are simultaneously planned or ongoing in a country.
It would be definitively counterproductive and damaging for both NFP and NFA if the perception in the country would be that the two are independent and un-coordinated undertakings.
7. Do NFAs and ILUAs for cross sectoral policy harmonisation constitute a comparative advantage of FAO
The potential contribution of information provision for a cross-sectoral policy harmonization is not clearly recognized.
It is certainly a comparative advantage of FAO to house expertise and manage networks of experts in various natural resources related fields when it comes to integrate assessments of the forest resource with the assessment of other resources. This integration requires joint planning and coordination of specific expectations and demands.
The necessary dialogue and discussion process may, indeed, lead to better mutual understanding of policy processes in related sectors
Continue to be a forum for harmonizing information and setting standards for data capture, data processing and analysis as well as reporting – based on national needs.
Merge NFA and agricultural censuses
8. Coordination with other actors and donors to improve country information about forestry resources and support national policy dialogue
While the generation of a sound data base for policy development must be a generic interest of the countries, FAO may, through its existing networks and country contacts, play a major advisory role in facilitating contacts to these networks of experts, other interested parties and also to donors who may be willing to support that process.
With respect to the national policy dialogue, it is expected that the NFP will take on an important role. In this dialogue it is important that the main stakeholders and interested groups are involved at the earliest possible point in time in the process. This is important for the overall credibility of the process and the products and also to generate country ownership and commitment at high political levels.
FAO, in a joint effort of the NFP facility and the NFAs, should develop and promote routines and recommendations how to involve the main stakeholders at the right time throughout the NFA process; this includes potential collaborators, donors, universities (checklist of possible actors, workshop topics, etc.). This recommendation may include a suggestion how to establish a steering committee and assign a clear mandate to it.
