Summary findings were presented by Peter Holmgren, FAO, based on the draft FRA 2000 Summary Report that was to be presented to COFO 2001. The findings are here represented by quoting the abstract of the report:
"The paper presents an overview of findings from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000). FRA 2000 was based on an exhaustive survey of inventory reports from around the world, dialogues with national forestry experts and application of a core global set of definitions. The assessment concluded that the world's forest cover at the year 2000 was 3.86 billion hectares compared to FAO's previous estimate of 3.45 billion hectares in 1995. However, the two estimates are not directly comparable due to changes in definitions and the information base.
Net annual deforestation at the global level is still high at 9 million hectares, with gross deforestation estimated at 13.5 million hectares per annum. This is a significantly lower net rate compared to FAO's previous report for the period 1990 - 1995 (11.3 million ha per year), partly due to improved datasets. Key factors contributing to the estimate of lower net forest loss are attributed to natural regeneration of forests in industrialised countries and high rates of plantation establishment in Asia, particularly in China and India. However, the large scale conversion of forests to other land uses was not significantly lower in the tropics between the 1980s and the 1990s.
FRA 2000 showed that the concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) continues to gain momentum around the world. Most countries are involved in international initiatives related to SFM and areas under forest management plans are increasing. But statistics on key indicators of SFM are still missing from a large number of countries. Forest and forestry information has increased in quantity over the past decade, but studies within the current assessment indicate that primary information and first-hand knowledge may not have improved significantly at the global level.
Comprehensive reports are found on the FAO website at www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp . "
The details of FRA 2000 findings in the workshop countries were presented by Alberto Del Lungo, FAO, see Appendix 4.
The group work on FRA 2000 findings was carried out using the Internet. The information provided in FAO's forestry country profiles were investigated. The following queries were given to the groups.:
1. Has FAO considered the relevant source data and documentation available?
2. Has FAO interpreted national classifications correctly?
3. Are the estimations of changes (deforestation resp. plantation establishment) adequately done? if not, how can they be improved?
4. Does the FAO country profile contain relevant information? If not, please specify and identify important information gaps.
Findings:
Country |
Query 1 |
Query 2 |
Query 3 |
Query 4 |
Angola |
Yes, although source is very old, it is the only available source for the country |
Yes, reclassification exercise was carried out by a local expert in co-operation with FRA expert |
Because of the lack of information, process adopted by FRA is relevant. However the method seems to be weak because of the small number of samples used. |
Yes |
Botswana |
There may be other primary sources available that will be provided to FRA. |
Process seems to be correct, but country still need some clarifications on how FAO generated the figures |
Namibia rates were used to generate estimates for Botswana. Process does not represent the current situation of the country. Plantation estimates are OK. |
Yes |
Lesotho |
Yes but the plantations have been misinterpreted. Corrections were provided. |
Yes |
See query 1 |
Yes |
Malawi |
Yes |
Yes |
Adequate for natural forest. New estimate can be provided for plantations |
Yes |
Mozambique |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Namibia |
Even if old, the source used is the only one that contains estimates for the whole country. Other sources, more recent, contain partial information. It would be better to show them all in the web. |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
South Africa |
Yes, however a new forest inventory is underway. (The total figure 8 916 894 ha is different from present official figures for S.A., due to different definitions). |
Reclassification will be validated by S.A. Plantation: Yes |
The assessment should be revisited when better information is available. Plantation: Yes |
Yes |
Swaziland |
Yes but the most reliable reference is the one from 1990. The recent one (1999) only refers to an update and is not very reliable |
Yes |
Yes even if the process is weak because of the weakness of the recent reference. |
Yes |
Zambia |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes but the change of the reference year for the historical reference implies changes in the estimates. Estimate likely too pessimistic, but no better method could be found. Plantation rate are over estimated |
Yes |
Zimbabwe |
Yes |
Natural classes OK Plantations OK |
Yes (after clarification) |
Yes |
