The workshop achieved its main objective to revise the status of the preparation and drafts FRA 2005 country reports of the participating countries, as well as sharing country experiences on the reporting process. The Russian-speaking FRA national correspondents and focal points demonstrated the high level of knowledge of the forest sector in general, and the FRA requirements in particular. Common and specific problems and issues in the country reporting were identified and discussed among the participants, and with the secretariat, and guidance on how to address these problems was provided. These issues were all documented in Russian, and after the translation they are included in this workshop Proceedings.
The country correspondents from this sub-region showed considerable progress in the country reporting process for FRA 2005. Five Russian-speaking National Correspondents had already submitted first draft reports to the FRA secretariat. Other participating National Correspondents committed themselves to submit their draft reports by the end-December 2004, or end-January 2005. The committed timetable of the country reporting was one of the practical outcomes of the workshop.
The FAO planning for (and expectations from) the FRA 2005 thematic studies were presented to participants, and part of the workshop was devoted to the discussion of the support that FAO-FRA is providing to national forest resources assessments. A number of countries expressed their interest to include some voluntary reporting tables, and some countries also were interested to contact FAO HQs a propos the thematic studies. Some countries, particularly the countries from Central Asia and Caucasus region have showed their interest (and intention) to contact FAO with regard to discussing future possible support from FAO in development of the national forest resources assessments.
The main issues that were discussed during the workshop are presented below. They 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 are expected to be posted on the FRA 2005 website under the Frequently Asked Questions.
A. General comments on scope / coverage, methodology and process of FRA 2005 implementation
1. The FRA 2005 Reporting Template is not available in Russian, and this causes problems to provide the required information in full compliance with the established procedures. Some countries will be in a position to supply FRA 2005 country reports in Russian only.
2. Some countries are trying to make efforts to translate the Reporting Template from English to Russian, but it costs money… Would it be possible to get financial support for this work … ?
3. Some guiding lines (in “Guidelines…” or “Specification of NRTs…”) are “ambiguous”, and might be interpreted differently, especially when translated into Russian…, e.g. the paragraph in “Guidelines…” (section 4.11, p.33, 2nd para from the bottom of the page) hints on the “priority” of “national red lists”, while in fact the information is required (predominantly) according to the “IUCN red list”.
4. There are some differences in data in the global FRA 2000 main report, and TBFRA 2000 … What source is more relevant from the participating (in this workshop) countries point of view?…
5. The data/ information reported in other publications (e.g. UNFCCC, IPC-Forest, Forest products statistics) often different from what is being reported to FRA 2005 (e.g. data on removals for Russia in comparison with the Forest Products Statistics publications).
6. The information / data are available only for the forest and OWL areas under forest authority…, and no data for other wooded lands of the country as a whole (e.g. Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan). Lacking information for some important areas of the country on political reasons (Georgia)… What is better: to “extrapolate” estimates for all the territory of the country, or provide hard (but partial) data?
7. If the information on Forest and Other Wooded Lands is available only in an aggregation, how is better to show the data – in Forest, or in OWL, or provide expert estimates…
8. The participating countries, those that have already provided their reports, will re-consider some information/ data in the light of the discussions at the workshop. They confirmed their readiness to provide complete sets of data for Table 1 and 5, even if this would demand applying expert estimates.
9. Could FAO help (organisationally, financially) to publish of the final FRA 2005 country reports at the national level, as a tool to raise the profile of forestry and SFM in a country, also in the country state languages (Booklets, Internet, CDs…)?
B. Review of National Reporting Tables – summary of issues and comments
T1 |
• FAOSTAT data on Land area, Inland water and Total area significantly different from those in the “official governmental” publications at the national level (e.g. Tajikistan – some 55 thousand ha of difference). • National definitions do not fit accurately (also in the process of reclassification) to FRA 2005 classifications and definitions… There are areas that do not fit to the FRA forest land criteria (rediny- scattered forests)… is it better to report them under forests, or report as an other wooded land ? • Should the reclassification of national Forest area data be done in a retrospective, if change in the National classification has happened in-between the reporting periods (e.g. Russia shows big loss of Forest areas from 1990 to 2000 because of national reclassification)… • The question of priority of more reliable (hard, but partial) information/ data, over possible expert estimates on the basis of information available from different sources/publications. • Significant difference in data reporting for FRA 2000 is expected for some countries (e.g. Ukraine) • Should all planted areas be counted as Forest, even if planting was just done, and if the area does not form yet a stand responding to the FRA 2005 definition of Forest ? |
T2 |
• Although private ownership is not a “wide-spread phenomenon” in this sub-region, there are first signs of establishing private ownership (starting of the process) in same participating countries … There are no data to report in this connection • Cases noted when the private ownership on land brings to private ownership on Forests, planted by owners on those private lands (e.g. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) |
T3 |
• The information on total area with function is not available, and/or might be a high level of judgement in providing this sort of information. • Reclassification of national data into FRA classes requires some judgement, e.g. in Lithuania – 18 national classes, in Kazakhstan – 9 national classes. |
T4 |
o The difference between semi-natural forest, modified-natural forest and plantations is difficult to detect / report according to the suggested definitions... • Lack (or weak and “not reliable” data) for some categories in this thematic area |
T5 |
• How to handle the situation when Commercial growing stock is almost equal to the Total growing stock (Lithuania)? • Minimum diameters for different forest types and tree species not always available, and could not be thoroughly taken into account? |
T6 |
• Countries (NCs) prefer not to “be lost” in details of the “IPCC Good practice guidance for LULUCF”, Chapter 3.2, “Forest land” (even if this document is being translated into Russian), but they would rather follow the FRA 2005 “Guidelines “… in reporting, when calculating biomass (and carbon). • Some countries will use research/scientific data available in the country for reporting (e.g. Ukraine) • Deadwood biomass is not accumulating in forests of the Central Asian countries (climate, insects, consumption by population, etc) |
T7 |
• Although there is research, and some scientific knowledge on the matter, there are no/ very weak information on soil carbon and litter carbon at the national level in majority of participating countries. • Carbon data availability - only above ground biomass data are available… other pools are under different levels of knowledge... • Would it be acceptable if national data and methods would be applied to calculate and present carbon data (even if different from IPCC methods)?.. • Working contacts of FRA NCs are recommended with the national working groups on Climate Change |
T8 |
• Difficult to follow the suggested FRA 2005 definition in terms of thresholds for “significant” disturbances, and to define threshold of the “significance”.. Judgements are unavoidable … • How to define the disturbance area when the developments (disturbances) are going on (e.g. insects, diseases), and area is constantly changing ?… • Is the illegal logging to be reported as a type of “other disturbances”?… • How to reflect the area in this FRA reporting when some forest fires are considered a part of natural forest dynamics (Russia)?
|
T9 |
• Very often the countries’ lists of endangered species do not match the IUCN list or categories… Need to confirm the “priority” of the IUCN list in comparison with the national red lists in FRA 2005 reporting • What to report, if the new national red list is elaborated and it is very close to be approved (but not approved yet)…? To report data from the “old list”, or from the new one…? • A misleading recommendation is detected in the “Guidelines…” (section 4.11, p.33, 2nd para from the bottom of the page)… Please, clarify… |
T10 |
Is it acceptable if only 8 (i.e. not 10) species are included in the country report (others are insignificant), or if data are available only in terms of area, but not volume. |
T11 |
• There is no Industrial wood removal in majority of the Central Asian countries …, and it would be difficult (if possible at all) to extrapolate the data for fuel wood removals available for state forest fund (forest authority) to other public/ state forest owners (agriculture, military, etc) • Should the data reported in this table be harmonized with the data on Growing Stock (T5) ? • Illegal loggings have significant impact on the statistics available in some countries for this thematic area (also on Growing stock data) |
T12 |
• Permanently changed rates of national currencies in the past causing the problem of any accurate reporting of data for this table. • What to do (how to report) if the national currency was introduced only after 1993 ? • The value data are available only in aggregation for industrial wood and fuel wood (Ukraine) • The fuel wood cost “almost nothing” (symbolic price) to population, according to the president’s order/ guidance… (Turkmenistan) |
T13 |
• Data might be available only for a few variables, difficult (if possible at all) to provide expert estimates on the basis of the old data (before the 1990th ), as patterns of removal/ consumption/ utilisation of NWFP might changed significantly during the last years |
T14 |
• The same, as for the Table 12, and even more difficult to find/ estimate values • Should consumption in the process of grazing be evaluated as “fodder” ??? • How to estimate/ evaluate the “wild” honey, i.e. the honey which is not from an apiary in the forest, or only value of this “wild” honey should be reported ?… |
T15 |
• Lack (or weak and “not reliable”) data, which also difficult to break down into the FRA categories • How to report the employment of temporary forest workers… ? |
Thematic Reports |
• Forest and Water might be the key topic of interest for many Central Asian countries • As advised, some of countries intend to contact the colleagues in FAO HQs responsible for the implementation of the corresponding thematic studies • How can FAO help countries with their national forest inventories and forest resources assessments? … |
The participating countries were informed that the key issues reported above should be addressed at the FAO website, FRA 2005 Frequently Asked Questions webpage:
The participating countries (FRA national correspondents and focal points) discussed and evaluated their abilities / capacities to deliver the FRA 2005 Country Reports, and provided their estimates / commitments to supply the country reports according to the following time-table:
Country |
Information |
Armenia |
• The report is expected to be submitted by the end of January 2005 • The National Correspondent participated in the FAO HQs November 2003 training, but he was overcoming difficulties to get data at the national level… |
Georgia |
• The first draft is expected by the mid-February 2005 • The country representative at the meeting had not been in a position to approach the FRA 2005 reporting before the sub-regional workshop. There is a problem to get data for some regions of Georgia, any support from FAO to get the necessary information would be welcomed |
Kazakhstan |
• The report is expected by the second half of January 2005 • The input from the workshop will help to complete the key tables |
Kyrgyzstan |
• Promised to submit the report in the second half of January 2005… • The issues to overcome for completing the corresponding tables are noted in the above list |
Lithuania |
• One of the leading countries of the region, which provided the first draft report. The second draft was available at the workshop. The finally revised version is promised by 25 December 2004 |
Poland |
• The first draft is expected by the end of January 2005 • The National Correspondent is overwhelmed with other tasks, and the solution to the situation necessary resources for reporting) was being discussed with the Ministry |
Russian Federation |
• The country provided the first draft report in September… The second draft was available by the time of the workshop… Some clarifications, especially on the cutting/ removals volumes, were requested during the workshop. The final submission of the finally revised version of the report (if any improvements) is expected by the end of December 2004 |
Tajikistan |
• The first (very tentative draft) was provided by the time of the workshop. The report as a whole is expected by 15 January 2005 • The issue of the land area (against the data indicated by FAOSTAT) should be clarified. |
Turkmenistan |
• The first draft is expected by the end of January 2005. The issues to overcome for completing the corresponding tables are noted in the above list (e.g. Template translation issue). • Any additional support from FAO to the reporting process would be welcomed |
Ukraine |
• The first (tentative draft) was provided by the time of the workshop. The report as a whole is expected by the end of January 2005 |
Uzbekistan |
• The country representative at the workshop was in close contact with the officially nominate FRA national correspondent… The preparation of the report is well advanced. Biomass and Carbon stock (Tables 6 & 7) were considered as the difficult area for reporting. The first draft is expected by the end of December 2004 - the very beginning of January 2005 |
The participants of the meeting agreed upon the above work plan and timetable for completing the country reports.
