See presentation in Appendix 6.
View of FRA / FRIS/ GFS:
1. Supports FRIS initiative as it gives provision for updating and ownership of information;
2. FRA complements existing systems;
3. FRA/FRIS/GFS are in line with the provisions of oue recently revised National Forest Policy (e.g. Public information, campaigns, capacity building);
4. FAO's obligations toprovide server power, information backups, access, facilitation of system development and learning offer opportunities for cost saving and capacity building;
5. In Botswana, forestry information/data are fragmentary. Development of "FRIS" that also provides for linkages with other information systems would highly asist in information gathering and management. Flexibility of "FRIS" would assist us to design it to suit our national needs;
6. Linkage with other SADC countries would promote collaboration and information exchange;
Specific requirements:
7. FAO should sort out the question of protocol in the organisation [of its support];
8. It is proposed that Botswana be considered for a GFS "pilot projct". Scenario: Botswana's forestry sector is still at an infant stage of development. This would help us to develop and build capacity;
9. COFO should emphasize commitment of member states in provision of material resources and political support. FAO is [by Botswana] considered there to complement national initiatives;
10. FAO support is crucial for sustenance of forestry information systems.
Lesotho support the "FRIS" and GFS initiatives and notes that regional coordination is important.
A presentation of Lesotho's forest resources and forest policy and the development issues in the country, especially related to community forestry was made.
One observation is that enhanced ownership of the resources has led to improved management of forest resources and increased the potential supply of products (and services)
See presentation in Appendix 6.
- expressed the need for a policy relevant information system like FRIS, and supported to adopt it as a platform.
- very willing to continue to provide FRA information to FAO, and to continue to collaborate on the FRIS and GFS
See presentation in Appendix 6.
South Africa's presentation was made earlier (see section 5.1.1 and presentation in Appendix 6).
- currently no formal forest(?) policy, only five policy statements, formulation is ongoing
- very small forestry sector, under the dept of agriculture, feels 'suppressed'
- FRA / FRIS / GFS of good use for Swaziland
- FRA: good collaboration with FAO
- Guidance from FAO welcome on eg classification into forest types related to policy development
- FRIS: ensures information storage. Use of computers is not well developed so trining of local staff required.
- Current policy development must become clear and understandable to be approved.
- GFS: S wants to have another inventory, interested in changes in the forest resources. FAO can play a better role in providing technical knowledge, and facilitate funding.
- must confer with department before confirming interest
See presentation in Appendix 6.
See presentation in Appendix 6.
After concluding discussions, the workshop recommended that
regarding FRA 2000:
1. FAO adopt the proposed adjustments to FRA 2000 results;
2. Countries submit existing source information that has not yet been included, as well as propose changes to country profile contents, noting the April (ca) deadline for FRA 2000 final report;
3. Countries who wish to work more closely with FAO on the FAO country profile contents approach FAO to conclude the necessary arrangement;
regarding national Forest(ry) Information Systems:
4. FAO continue its support to national forest(ry) information systems, including training, and seek ways to coordinate this work on a regional basis, with special reference to SADC-FSTCU;
5. Countries adopt the principles of the FRIS prototype, including development of policy relevant information structure, dynamic content maintenance, web access, data security and long-term system stability;
6. Countries consider FAO's Forestry Information System as an optional, feasible and cost-efficient platform for presenting and maintaining forest(ry) information using the world wide web;
7. Countries that wish to further develop an information partnership based on the FAO Forestry Information System platform, approach FAO to seek agreements as a basis for this partnership;
regarding the Global Forest Survey:
8. FAO continue the development of a Global Forest Survey (GFS)in support of national forestry programmes, including to formulate projects and seek funding, in collaboration with countries that are interested to participate in the pilot phase;
9. Countries that wish to further develop the GFS concept approach FAO in this matter;
regarding follow-up actions:
10. COFO 2001 consider the potential benefits contained in the above points 4-9 as concluded in this workshop within the agenda item on future global assessments;
11. FAO facilitate a follow-up workshop in the region within one year that focusses on the further development/establishment of national forest(ry) information systems in support of forest policy processes;
12. Countries before the above proposed meeting establish a (prototype) national forest(ry) information system with web access that reflects policy information requirements
13. Country participants further consult their respective governments on the proposals concerning information systems and the Global Forest Survey, among other things to ensure in-country coordination and endorsement, and inform FAO and COFO of their intentions with respect to these two developments
An evaluation form was filled in by the participants, with an option to remain anonymous. The results are shown in the table below. From the results and comments given on the evaluation forms, the workshop seems to have covered the right topics, and been using a constructive process. Several participants had wanted more time for the group work. Impacts of the workshop results are expected in the participating countries.
Strongly agree |
Partly agree |
Partly disagree |
Strongly disagree | |
A. Workshop contents |
||||
The workshop topics were highly relevant to my institution. |
17 |
3 |
||
Presentations (FRA 2000 / FRIS / GFS) were effective in conveying relevant information. |
17 |
2 |
1 |
|
The meeting was directed and facilitated in a way that allowed us to participate effectively. |
19 |
1 |
||
The hands-on exercises using the world wide web was helpful. |
14 |
6 |
||
B. Workshop Process |
||||
The time available during the workshop was appropriate to our requirements. |
12 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
There was a good balance between presentations, group work and discussions. |
15 |
2 |
3 |
|
It was possible to reach clear conclusions. |
8 |
11 |
1 |
|
C. Workshop Impact |
||||
The results of the workshop will be useful in my future work. |
17 |
2 |
1 |
|
The results of the workshop will help FAO to fulfil their mandate. |
16 |
3 |
1 |
|
The results of the workshop will improve regional cooperation. |
14 |
4 |
2 |
|
The results of the workshop will improve sustainable forest management in my country. |
10 |
10 |
||
D. Organization |
||||
The available facilities allowed us to work effectively. |
9 |
7 |
1 | |
The travel arrangements (international and local) were effective. |
14 |
4 |
2 |
|
The accomodation was good. |
9 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
Stellenbosch was a hospitable location. |
5 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
The conference venue met our needs. |
8 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
Printouts of FAO Forestry Department contacts information were distributed during the workshop, and the participants were very helpful in updating the information. The updated contacts will be fed back into the FAO information systems.
The operational costs for the workshop were approximately and tentatively USD 52 000, divided into (a) venue and local arrangements 18 000, (b) participants travel 25 000, and (c) FAO staff travel 9 000. DWAF and Stellenbosch University will make proposal on how to use eventual surplus from the local arrangements, for follow-up activities in line with the workshop objectives.
