Online consultation on the first draft of the FAO voluntary guidelines on national forest monitoring
Reliable information on forests is fundamental for improving the management of forest resources. Often, however, this information applies beyond forest boundaries: it can, for example, be used as an indicator of biodiversity, hydrology, and soil conservation. High quality and accessible forest information is also needed to fulfil the reporting requirements of many international agreements, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
To obtain timely and reliable forest information at different scales, there must be clear guidance on how to collect, compile, and analyse it. In this context, the Twenty-First Session of the Committee on Forestry (COFO 21), held in September 2012, recommended that FAO continue to support the efforts of member countries to strengthen their National Forest Monitoring Systems (NFMS).
The preparation of the voluntary guidelines on national forest monitoring began in September 2012. The guidelines will present a set of good practice principles supported by a set of decision-making tools for the planning and implementation of a multipurpose, scientifically sound NFMS.
Phase I of the drafting process has already been completed (and endorsed by COFO 22 in July 2014); this phase included the development of a definition of national forest monitoring, and a description of the guidelines’ scope and principles (Sections I and II). Phase II, currently under way, will be a compilation of good practices and technical recommendations on national forest monitoring (Section III).
The first draft of the Voluntary Guidelines Section III has now been prepared, please download it here. As part of the consultative process prior to its finalization and external peer review, the FAO Forestry Department is seeking your input to further improve the draft, through this online consultation managed by the FSN Forum. The guidelines will be released for the consideration of COFO at its 23rd Session in July 2016.
Comments and input are welcome on all chapters of Section III, but in particular on the following aspects:
- Does the draft adequately cover all elements needed to establish and sustain an NFMS?
- What other technical, logistical or policy issues should the document cover?
- Given that the voluntary guidelines are being designed for use by NFMS managers, what aspects of Section III could be improved to meet this objective?
- Is there any redundant content that could be removed to make the document more concise?
We also kindly invite respondents to provide relevant case studies on country experiences, including any instances of “errors to be avoided”.
Thank you very much for engaging with FAO Forestry on this consultation. We look forward to a rich and fruitful discussion!
Eduardo Mansur, Director
Forest Assessment, Management and Conservation Division
FAO Forestry Department
- Read 24 contributions
Thank you for the opportunity to review the First DRAFT SECTION III, FAO Voluntary Guidelines on National Forest Monitoring. This is an excellent and very useful document – A job well–done!
Attached are some observations that may be of interest.
Thank you for making this consultation publicly available. It shows a great deal of transparency and willingness to receive feedback from a wide audience.
My comments and suggestions are mostly related to COFO's mandate in relation to REDD+ and nationally determine goals and strategies under the UNFCCC, especially on measuring and reporting emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
Overall, the document is very easy to read, well-written and concise. It is encouraging to see a specific section on the integration of young experts and I would suggest this is kept in the final version. Along this line, I would suggest that the NFMS shall: “Consider an inter-generational strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of capacities” (Section 3.5., p 13). This strategy should include students, as mentioned in the text, but also young professionals hired at different government levels.
In terms of the operation of the NFMS, I agree with the need to have a QA/QC plan, which in turn needs to be more clearly linked to the national GHG inventory’s QA/QC plan, especially in relation to the AFOLU sector.
At the same time, I was concerned to see the absence of a specific section on the financial sustainability of the NFMS. This could potentially be addressed in Section 2.1. Institutionalization. Especially in developing countries, current efforts to build a NFMS largely rely on international donations/grants. Ideally an institutionalized system would have its own permanent funding, assigned by the government, particularly considering new INDCs under UNFCCC. I would suggest that a section is included (or Section 2.1. is expanded) to address this issue.
Though, as set out in the introductory sections of the document, the NFMS shall seek to providing useful information for a number of initiatives, conventions and commitments, I believe it is very important to make a clear connection to MRV requirements under the UNFCCC and considering IPCC guidelines, as appropriate. Especially for the AFOLU sector, I did not see a link of measurement and reporting processes with the agriculture sector or even within the forestry sector for harmonizing the estimation of emissions by sources and removals by sinks. There is also a lack of guidance on how to link national reports such as FRA, BUR, National Communications and the GHG inventory. In my experience, such guidance is key and many countries have important obstacles to do this. I would suggest adding a new section on MRV under the UNFCCC after Section 4.4. If appropriate, similar sections may be added for FRA and other relevant UNFCCC conventions.
Finally, I have shared my thoughts with other colleagues and international consultants and we have agreed that some of the guidance provided in this document is too broad to help any specific country situation and that efforts should be undertaken to aid countries in implementing the guidelines defined here.
Thanks again for fostering dialogues and promoting transparency,
All the best,
Javier
Comments on the Draft on NFSMs
I shall begin with the obvious, viz., why do we need a forest monitoring system, which obviously requires a considerable amount of human and other resources to establish and maintain?
It would be reasonable to suggest that such a system is essential to nurture and sustain our forest resources, because it would enable us to ascertain to what extent we may utilise them without impairing their sustainability and to undertake appropriate actions whenever their sustainability is under threat.
Indeed, this is the sole context within which NFSM acquires its justification. Forest monitoring then, ought to be embeded not only in the institutional bundle the current draft outlines, but in a more holistic one that includes all institutions involved in national life.
This may seem a trivial point, but I think, unless we have an uncontroversial reason to ensure the continued existence of forests, and their monitoring as a necessary condition for it, one might easily loose one’s sense of proportion among technical details.
Nobody will dispute that we all are beneficiaries of forests in that they are vital components of Oxygen and Carbon dioxide cycles, enhance the water table, absorb excess of solar heat and improve the local climate, etc.
Now, the ability of the forest to give us those benefits, depends on the equilibrium between the living things in it and its mineral resources required for their continued existence. The latter includes soil nutrients and water.
The quantity of utilisable soil nutrients and water in a given forest area is finite. So, the sustainability of a forest depends on a continued cycle of death and biological degradation of its inhabitants, which would replenish its pool of soil nutrients. Here, death may be due to age, disease or predation.
This process of replenishment, depends on the equilibrium among the species living in a forest. This biological equilibrium has a qualitative and a quantatative component. Biodiversity represents this qualitative component, while population of the individual species reflects its quantitative aspect.
Thus, the sustainability of a forest depends on the adequacy of its soil nutrients and water supply for the living there. The adequacy of the former, depends on the equilibrium among them, i. E. Natural biodiversity, which is instrumental in dynamically keeping the populations of individual species at sustainable levels.
If the foregoing is reasonable, then forest monitoring as an adjunct to its sustainability, ought to extend its range and scope to include rivers, streams, lakes, etc., in a forest as well as its smaller plants, and at least some of its fauna. I know this is a tall order, but it can be very significant under some circumstances.
For instance, during drought in some parts of Africa, elephants resort to barking trees as their access to grass becomes limited. This leads to the destruction of many trees. Likewise, unlimited hunting of the carnivores in savanas results in over grazing by the buffalos, which has serious land and climatic implications. Perhaps, some mechanism may be developed so that forest monitoring could cooperate with Wild Life Services of a country to render its data as complete as possible.
After this somewhat critical start, I am delighted to see the two key aspects of an NFSM, foundation elements and their institutionalisation are very well put indeed. As for the exchange of students, researchers, etc., is an excellent idea in principle, but it would be useful only if areas of their work and the systems they represent are more or less commensurable.
Even within a given region, this commensurability may not always obtain. As it has been pointed out in the current draft, it is important to begin the work and continue to improve it as one goes along. But, such improvements have to be made gradually owing to the uneven distribution of human and other resources required for the purpose. So, exchanges between the most advanced countries in forest monitoring and new comers to the field could only lead to unrealistic expectations and abandoned projects.
The draft suggests, “linkages with other national, regional and global institutes partner…””, and there again, their relevance to the overall purpose of an NFSM is paramount to avoid inappropriate practices. I have already mentioned national wild life service as an important contributor to this endeavour.
The current draft states, ”here are other “sectors” like agriculture, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, ecotourism development or other forest-related fields that are
interested in the results from national forest monitoring.” Unfortunately, this approach represents a case of putting the cart before the horse in a reductive fashion.
Taken individually, those secotors can hardly undertake steps to ensure the sustainability of forests using NFSM data, and if no forests exist, all of them would be adversely affected. So, it is important to incorporate an NFSM into a national conservation agency with linkages to social practices with environmental implications.
Finally, I think it would be prudent to give permanant employment to trainees in forest monitoring as a means of ensuring a continued supply of competent, and one hopes, dedicated people. In my view, it would be very useful if international resources can be made available to pay them if a country finds it difficult to do so owing to valid pragmatic reasons.
Best wishes!
Lal Manavado.
Dr. Bhubaneswor Dhakal
I have the following comments on draft report of FAO voluntary guidelines on national monitoring that you call comments on FSN Forum
- A substantial level of forest inventory work is required for preparing country report for Global Forest Resources Assessmnet Report. FAO prepares the report. The draft report of FAO voluntary guidelines on national monitoring has not stated the difference in information between the reports. I believe most of the information will be same. I request moderator to clarify the differences and provide supplementary information in this discussion. Does FAO hold hidden interest to separate the project activities?
- I read the draft report. I felt that many suggestions are general and presented in vague language. This level of information are already available to the monitoring bodies of most countries. If you present in this form the guidelines they make little contribution in institutional capacity building. Your effort and money used in preparing this guidelines will be wasted.
- Based on the reading of the draft guideline document has focused on wood, carbon and total biomass. If status information of all kinds of forest products (e.g. firewood and fodder) and successions are specified in the inventory report they will be much useful to make forest management decision at both local and national levels. The information, for example, helps to make decisions on improving forest management for biodiversity conservation. They would also help to understand stocks and dynamics of various products available to support livelihoods of local people. If the FAO had genuine interest to collect the useful product specific information the national monitory guidelines had clear instruction. But the draft guideline document has provided detail instructions for little important things but not given attention on the useful things.
- Need of indigenous people is a complicated and sensitive subject and ordinary people cannot adequately deal with them. Forest resources are means of food, nutrition, medicines, antibiotics and cultural existance of the people. Speacilised inputs are vital to explain the relationship between various forest products and existence of indigenous people. Forestry inventory workers cannot deal with the complex and sensetive issue. Based on my experience on forestry development work in Nepal, they manipulate the leaders of indigenous people by various means and make interpretation of the value of the resources in own value and interest. The work of foresters are rather exacerbated by declining of indigenous popluation with extinction threat. It can be said that the forest development policy is doing genocide of indigenous people. Therefore, there should be very clear guidelines to address the needs of the people.
- The word “manpower” is discriminatory from gender perspective. I would use the term “humanpower” instead.
Thanks for providing the opportunity of commenting on your work.
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.