Below, the main issues that were discussed during the workshop are presented. These are organized according the reporting tables, preceded by a section on general comments and questions on the scope, coverage and methodology of FRA 2005. The issues will be discussed by the FRA secretariat and the key issues of general interest will be posted on the FRA 2005 website under the Frequently Asked Questions.
1. Why is FAO asking for information that is already presented in other statistics (e.g. fire and wood removals)?
2. What to do if different data is reported in another source of statistics (e.g. JFSQ, IPCC etc)?
3. What to do if data in the FRA 2005 country report for the years 1990 and 2000 are different from what was reported in FRA 2000?
4. Many of the participating countries have just gone through a process of extensive privatization of forest resources. Unfortunately, there is a general lack of data from the private sector which is causing problems for the FRA reporting.
5. For many tables data are not available separately for Forest and Other wooded land and it is difficult or almost impossible to disaggregate the data for these classes.
6. Concern was raised that FAO has changed some definitions between FRA 2000 and FRA 2005 and added some new variables. This makes it difficult to adjust ongoing national assessments and to make long-term trends.
7. Concern was raised that the data collected in FRA 2005 is not sufficient for making national and regional forecasts for outlook studies, etc.
8. Future FRAs should put more emphasis on addressing regional needs. One possibility might be to have a common core of national reporting tables for global variables, complemented by specific reporting tables designed to meet regional needs.
9. There is no national / federal forestry authority in two of the former Yugoslavian countries (Serbia & Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina), thus forestry issues are only dealt with at a sub-national level. This creates problems for the country reporting as people working at one of the sub-national forest authorities are not likely to be given access to information from any of the other sub-national forest authorities in the country. It is also difficult to obtain an official nomination of a National Correspondent (as in the case of Bosnia & Herzegovina). The participants from these countries requested FAO to assist in the gathering of information from the sub-national forestry authorities in order to get more reliable estimates for the countries.
Reporting Table |
Comments/ Issues |
T1 |
Concern was raised about difference between official figures (inland water area) and national data. What to do if such differences are encountered? National definitions and thresholds for Forest are slightly different from FRA 2005 definitions, how to handle this? What is better: to include partial recent available data or more complete but older data? Other land with tree cover: how to draw the line in terms of land use (e g silvipastural systems)? According to current FRA 2005 definitions, both Forest and Other land with tree cover refer to areas larger than 0.5 hectares. However, in some countries with very fragmented land use, there are considerable forest resources in woodlots that are smaller than 0.5 hectares. How should this be handled in the country reports? |
T2 |
Lack of information on land under private ownership |
T3 |
Which level of designation should be used, national policy or management level? Difficulty to distinguish between primary and total area with function. |
T4 |
Difficult for many countries to differentiate between Modified Natural and Semi-natural forest and between Semi-natural forest and Plantations. The term Modified Natural forest might be misleading (negative term, c.f. genetically modified...) Lack of data for some categories in the table. |
T5 |
How to handle difference in minimum diameters for different forest types and tree species for estimating Commercial growing stock? |
T6 |
When countries follow the methods outlined in the IPCC Good practice guidance when calculating biomass, should they present all the methodological steps or is it enough to refer to the IPCC-GPG? |
T7 |
No/ very weak information on Soil carbon and Litter carbon. |
T8 |
Difficult to disaggregate national disturbance classes (e g insects and diseases). Countries are encouraged to be as detailed as possible in the presentation of national data and provide a list of scientific names for insects and diseases. Data on disturbances is available only in terms of damaged volume (m3)
|
T9 |
How to handle if countries have lists of endangered species, which do not match the IUCN list or categories that do not correspond to the IUCN categories? |
T10 |
Data available only in terms of area but not volume. |
T11 |
Difficult to find information on private land. Is it possible to extrapolate available data for state forest to private forest (using the same share as in state-owned)? |
T12 |
How to handle the exchange rates when two different national currencies have been used during the reporting period? No data available for private sector, can an average of state sector be used? |
T13 |
Generally difficult to find / estimate quantities. Data available only for a few variables. |
T14 |
Difficult to find or estimate values How to interpret the term bush meat? How to handle licence fees and taxes in calculation of values? |
T15 |
Difficult to break down national data into the FRA categories Privatization in forestry leading to rapid changes in private sector and very little or no data are available for the private sector. |
Voluntary Reporting Tables |
What reporting years should be used? Can policy related reports be included? How to define Forest and Other wooded land areas that are under management? Is there any structure/ format for voluntary tables? |
The participants of the meeting agreed upon the following work plan and timetable for completing the country reports:
Country |
Information |
Romania |
No tables are yet completed as the NC has been nominated recently. Will submit table T1 first to get confirmation that it is OK. Expect to be able to complete all tables by the end of December |
Serbia & Montenegro |
First draft has already been submitted, some tables need to be checked and completed. Current data refer only to Serbia, it is necessary to find ways to get complementary information from Montenegro and Kosovo. Requests support from FAO to get this additional information Will have a final draft before Christmas |
Turkey |
Final draft has already been submitted. Will revise the tables based on input from the workshop |
Spain |
Final draft to be submitted in December |
Italy |
Italy will revise the FAO pilot study and complement with information from the ongoing NFA. A national working group for growing stock estimations has been established. The NC could not promise when the results from this working group would be available. It could make it difficult to submit the final draft before the deadline. |
Hungary |
Draft report has already been submitted, the NC will review the first four tables and submit final draft in December |
Croatia |
Draft report has already been submitted. Final draft to be submitted by the end of 2004 |
Bosnia & Herzegovina |
Requested FAO assistance for compiling the country report and/or to gather data from the other sub-national forest authority. |
The Forestry Department at FAO is planning to publish six thematic studies that will complement the FRA 2005 main report. The themes for these studies have been selected as being themes of emerging interest that might be included in the FRA 2010 or themes where FAO already possesses a substantial amount of complementary information.
The thematic studies will be prepared and are coordinated by subject experts, and the role of the FRA secretariat is to keep the national correspondents informed about these studies. The national correspondent will normally not be directly involved in provision of country data, but might be asked to liaise with national experts and to validate country information.
Some of the thematic studies, such as Ownership of forests and trees and Forests and water are still looking for countries interested in participating in the studies as pilot countries.
The thematic studies will cover the following themes:
Theme |
Contact persons |
Planted forests |
|
Forest fires and forest fire management |
|
Extent of mangroves |
|
Ownership of forests and trees |
|
Forests and water |
|
Forest pests |
The participants were asked to give a brief description on current situation and status of forest resource assessment in their respective countries. This can be summarized as follows:
Country |
Information |
Romania |
Last NFI was carried out 1985 Annual statistics of forest area are compiled from forest management plans, but growing stock is not included in these statistics. The forestry department is beginning to plan for a new NFI, but expensive satellite images constitute a major problem |
Serbia & Montenegro |
Last NFI was carried out 1979 Ongoing NFI project with support from Norway expected to finish in 2006. The existing data base with forest information cover only state forest and national parks, no information available on private forest |
Turkey |
Have conducted forest assessments since 1945 All forests are state owned, with management plans covering a 20 year period, plans updated every 10 years or when necessary (updated in the field). Data comes from a stand-based inventory. Teams are working continuously to update field data. No plans to conduct sample based NFIs |
Spain |
Ongoing NFI expected to conclude in 2006 Development of a new Forest information system is under way |
Italy |
First NFI was conducted in 1985 Ongoing second NFI expected to finish by the end of 2005 |
Hungary |
Annual assessments based on management plans Working with ortophotos |
Croatia |
No NFI has been conducted Hope to be able to conduct a NFI and complete it by the end of 2008 |
Bosnia & Herzegovina |
First and only NFI was carried out 1964-1968 Recently starting to look at possibilities to conduct a new NFI but political problems |
The Balkan countries and Romania were all interested in any kind of support that FAO might be able to offer as regards national forest resources assessments. Many times, the forestry authorities do not get the necessary political and financial support in order to carry out new NFIs. The participants from these countries asked FAO to promote country support to NFIs in the high-level dialogue with country officials.
The Balkan countries and Romania also proposed that FAO should arrange a sub-regional meeting on national forest resources assessment, during which a common sub-regional approach could be discussed as well as the possibilities to get support from FAO.
