The training consisted of ten plenary sessions that basically laid the conceptual framework, basis and guidelines for developing FRA 2005. In addition, three group works were woven in the training programme to make things clear and to indicate ways to National Correspondents (NCs) for organising country efforts to implement FRA 2005. The outputs of each group work were synthesised into a single report and presented in plenary sessions for comments by NCs. The last plenary session provided an additional opportunity to National correspondents to make final remarks. This chapter provides proceedings of the plenary sessions, the first of which was “inaugural session” and the last was the “concluding session” and rest were the technical training sessions.
Mr. M. Hosny El-Lakany, ADG (Forest), FAO formally opened the training of National Correspondents (NCs) by welcoming the participants, laying the context, setting the framework for the training sessions and formally launching the FRA 2005 preparation activities. (see his speech at page 2 &3). The Divisional Directors then reinforced the training framework with information about forestry activities in their respective divisions and their link to FRA and its broad framework. Mr. Steve Johnson, ITTO briefly informed participants about ITTO and its wide range of activities that are directly related to FRA and Criteria and Indicator processes. Mr. El Hadji Sène, Director of FOR division where FRA programme is placed, briefed the NCs on activities of FOR division and about FRA process and FRA 2005.
Mr. Peter Holmgren, Chief FORM, who directly supervises FRA briefed the participants about historical development of FRA process leading to current design of FRA 2005 (Annex 8). He informed the participants that FAO’s FRA programme has been a leading provider of global forest information for more than 50 years. Its coverage has evolved over time from covering simple information on timber supply in 1947 and deforestation in 1980 to latest assessment at year 2000 (FRA 2000)1 where a broad and transparent picture of forest resources in all countries was presented. In addition to factual findings and analyses, an important conclusion drawn in last FRA (FRA 2000) was that knowledge and information on forests remain unsatisfactory in most countries. He also told that FRA is a well-established arrangement where member countries actively participate in the assessment, existing knowledge is efficiently used, published results are generally accepted by international community as the global baseline, and where country capacity is built through active participation.
He explained that FRA 2005 is implementing the mandate given to it by COFO 2003 to further broaden its scope to include all benefits and all beneficiaries over time and space to satisfy the emerging demands, to reduce the reporting burden of countries by harmonising needs, formats and reporting, and to enhance country capacities to generate and provide national information. He indicated that FRA will continue to evolve and adhere to the framework of Thematic Areas common to the nine regional Criteria and Indicator (C&I) processes for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). Furthermore, synergies are sought with other forest-related processes that require national information, in particular the conventions on climate change and biological diversity.
He indicated a time frame for FRA 2005 activities that starts with formal request to countries for information in January 2004 to deadline of receiving country information by November 2004 and ends with release of FRA 2005 in September 2005.
He informed the participants that the main purpose of this training of NC was three fold - to raise awareness of FRA 2005, to explain, train and discuss data national data preparation for input to global FRA and to develop national and regional work plans for 2004 to country reporting to FRA that includes sixteen tables and optional component of thematic reporting.
Finally, Mr. M. Hosny El-Lakany, ADG closed the inaugural session with words of thanks and hope that this unique initiative will provide very productive inputs to FRA 2005.
The second plenary session started with two presentations (one form a developed country (Germany) and other from a developing country (Uganda) describing country expectations from this training programme. This was followed by presentations dealing with technical component of NC training programme specifically with introduction of the sixteen national reporting tables in four presentations by FRA secretariat. Each presentations was chaired and co-chaired by different FAO staff, who introduced themselves to the participants and briefed about their work at FAO before the presentation.
Mr. Friedrich Schmitz presented expectations of Germany, representing a developed and industrialised European country, from this NC training programme. He thanked and appreciated that FRA secretariat has sent detailed documentation regarding FRA 2005 to NCs well in time and hoped that training will produce useful outputs. He cautioned that harmonization of terms and definitions should not lead to a breakdown of consistency of the time series data with FRA. He felt that change of a single word might lead to change in time series. At the same time, he appreciated the need of a reporting system that is flexible enough to meet the varied need of different countries and institutions. He also informed that initially Germany has interpreted the COFO 2003 mandate to FRA differently than FAO and added that “Information Note 5” sent by FAO has helped to clarify this issue. He was of the view that reporting burden of the countries can be reduced with stable terms and definitions.
Mr. Paul Drichi, NC presented expectation of Uganda, a developing African country, from this NC training programme (Annex 9.1). He thanked and appreciated the development and distribution of technical documents by FRA secretariat, much in advance of the meeting to the NCs. He opined that the classification suggested for FRA 2005 is simple and good for many countries even with some minor rewordings of FRA 2000 definitions. He informed that his country supports the new developments in FRA and the new mandate given by COFO 2003 regarding reducing update cycle of FRA from 10 to 5 years, broadening its coverage and relating it with other international processes. He appreciated Kotka IV for recommending FRA to place emphasis on countries and NCs, to use “Framework” of regional processes on “C&I for SFM” and to develop synergies with reporting for other related international processes. He was of the view that this training programme will help NCs to understand concepts, design and reporting process of FRA 2005 and will lead to better national reporting to FRA 2005. Further, that this training will provide a good opportunity to FRA secretariat to get direct feedbacks from NCs leading to a very good start for implementation of FRA 2005.
Mr. Peter Holmgren, Chief FORM, presented an overview of country reporting on the “sixteen national reporting tables” by informing participants that it builds on FRA 2000 and relates to the six of the seven thematic areas common to the nine regional C&I processes (Annex 9.2). These sixteen tables contain global variables, their respective definitions, and an eight-step method, which transforms national data into harmonised data for global reporting. He briefly explained all these eight steps to NCs.
Mr. Jim Carle and Ms. Mette Loyche Wilkie respectively chaired and co-chaired the session dealing with reporting tables 1 to 4. Mr. Peter Holmgren introduced (Annex 9.3) the first four tables (1 to 4) to NCs covering their rationale, contents, format, time series (1990, 2000 and 2005) and related issues, if any, with examples of filled tables drawn from one of the five pilot studies. He informed them that the Table 1 (Extent of Forest) has three global variables (Forest, Other Wooded Lands, and Other Land with Trees) that need information at three points in time 1990, 2000 and 2005. Further, that there are two issues one relating to rewording of FRA 2000 definitions to make them simple and clear and second to consider inclusion or exclusion of new variable “Other land with trees”.
He briefed participants Table 2 (Ownership) that also has three global variables (Public, Private and Other/Unspecified) but needs information on two points in time 1990 and 2000). He explained the their utility and informed NC about the reporting units of these variables.
He explained Table 3 (Designation) in more detail to the NCs that has five global variables (Production Forest, Protection forests, Conservation forests, Social Service Forests, and Multiple Objective Forests). He informed NCs that the this table has two issues to resolve. First issue relates to definition of protected area and the second issue is the question whether all forests/other wooded land have multiple uses or can we say that one use is more predominant than others.
Finally, he presented Table 4(Characteristics) that also had five variables (Primary. Modified natural, Semi-Natural, Production Plantation, Protective Plantation) and two issues. The first issue was related to inclusion or exclusion of the variable “Modified natural” and the second was related to redefining plantation to include “native species”.
He concluded that the challenge is to achieve globally harmonised tables. He stressed again that some of FRA 2000 terms and definitions have been simple reworded for FRA 2005 to make them clearer and to address some of the difficulties pointed out by countries during implementation of FRA 2000. He also informed participants that pilot studies on national reporting for five countries (Guatemala, Italy, India, South Africa and Sweden) covering different parts of the world, using guidelines, national reporting tables and terms and definitions for FRA 2005, have performed well and indicate practicality of these documents.
Mr. Dieter Schoene and Mr. Saket Mohamed respectively chaired and co-chaired the session dealing with reporting tables 5 to 7. Mr. Kailash Govil presented (Annex 9.4) Table 5, 6 and 7 to NCs with their rationale, contents, and format stating that these three tables utilise information from national forest inventories and that attempt has been made to define “terms and definitions” as in proposed Good Practice Guidance (GPG) of IPCC.
He told the participants that the Table 5 provides information on Growing stock or volume of trees with two global variables (“Growing stock” and “Commercial Growing stock”) in three points of time 1990, 2000 and 2005. He indicated an issue to be addressed by NCs in their group work that relates to the question what should be the global minimum diameter of trees for reporting to this table. He explained the use of Volume Expansion Factors (VEF) to transform, if necessary, the national data to meet this global minimum limit. He presented a filled table drawn from a pilot study (India) to make things clear to NCs.
He informed NCs that next Table 6 (Forest Biomass) contains information on three global variables (“Above Ground Tree Biomass”, “Below Ground Tree Biomass”, and “Woody Biomass”) at three points in time 1990, 2000 and 2005. He briefed participants on the use of “Biomass Expansion Factor” (BEF) to convert stem biomass into tree biomass (including branches, stumps, and foliage). He presented a filled table drawn from a pilot study (India) to serve as an example and explained its contents.
Finally, he introduced Table 7 (Forest Carbon Stock) to the NCs that contains four global variables (“Carbon in Above Ground Tree Biomass”, “Carbon in Below Ground Tree Biomass”, “Carbon in Dead Wood Biomass”, and “Soil Carbon”). He presented a filled table drawn from a pilot study (India) and explained their contents and derivation to NCs.
Mr. Pierre Sigaud and Mr. Mike Jurvelius respectively chaired and co-chaired the session dealing with reporting tables 8 to 10. Mr. Örjan Jonsson described (Annex 9.5) rationale, content and format of Tables 8 to 10 to the participants with detailed presentation on the “eight steps” to transform national data in each of the “sixteen” tables to serve as input for global reporting.
He informed the participants that Table 8 (Disturbances Affecting Health and Vitality of Forest and Other Wooded lands) has information on four global variables (Fire, Insects, Disease and Other disturbances) at two points in time (1990 and 2000). He presented a filled Table 8 from a pilot study (Sweden) to demonstrate the process of developing its content.
He , then, described Table 9 (Forest Tree Species) to the NCs that contains information on two global variables (“Forest Tree (Inventoried) Species” and “Endangered Tree (Inventoried) Species”) at two points in time 1990 and 2000. He presented a filled table from a pilot study (Sweden) to NCs to serve as an example.
Finally, he presented Table 10 (Forest Composition) that contains information on single global variable “forest composition” (percentage of ten most frequent (by volume) inventoried tree species) at two points in time (1990 and 2000).
Mr. Adrian Whiteman chaired this part of the session dealing with reporting tables 11 to 14. Ms. Sebueng Kelatwang introduced (Annex 9.6) rationale, content and format of tables 11 to 14 to the participants.
She informed NCs that Table 11 (Volume of Wood Removal) contains data on two global variables (“Industrial Round Wood Removal” and “Wood Fuel Removal”) at three points in time (1990, 2000 and 2005). She presented a filled table drawn from a pilot study (South Africa) to serve as an example.
She then explained Table 12 (Value of Wood Removal) that contains information on two global variables (“Value of Round Wood Removal” and “Value of Wood Fuel Removal”) and needs information at three points in time (1990, 2000 and 2005). She used a filled table drawn from a pilot study (South Africa) to further explain the contents of the table.
She also briefed NCs on Table 13 that has information only on one global variable (Quantity of Non Wood Forest Products) at three points in time (1990, 2000 and 2005). She presented a filled table drawn from a pilot study (South Africa) to serve as an example to develop information for this table.
Finally, she presented Table 14 that also has only one global variable (Value of Non Wood Forest Products) with data at three points in time (1990, 2000 and 2005). She explained development of data for this table with the help of a filled table drawn from a pilot study (South Africa).
Mr. Dominique Reeb and Ms. Laura Russo chaired and co-chaired the session dealing with reporting tables 15 and 16. Ms. Monica Garzuglia presented (Annex 9.7) the set of last two (15&16) of the sixteen tables to NCs and explained the rationale, contents, format and issues relating to them.
She informed NCs that Table 15 (Sites for Social Functions) contained information on two global variables (Sites for Social Functions and Number of Visitors) at three points in time 1990, 2000 and 2005. She presented a filled table to NCs from a pilot study (Italy) to serve as an example.
She also briefed NCs on Table 16 (Employment) that contains information on three global variables (“Employment from Wood removal”, “Employment from NWFP removal”, “Employment from Other primary Activities”). She presented a filled table to NCs from a pilot study (India) to explain the contents to NCs.
She explained to NCs various problems encountered with these tables during development of five pilot studies (India, Guatemala, Italy, Sweden and South Africa). She informed the participants that the main problem with Table 15 and 16 was that the information was either missing or not satisfactory. Further that as a general statement it can be said that the number of sites for Table 15 was underestimated due to difficulty in monitoring all the sites having social functions, which are not necessarily only designated protected areas. She mentioned that Table 16 faced similar problem (under estimation and poor information) as exemplified in the five pilot studies.
This session focussed on providing necessary guidance and information to the participants on Group Work 1 (GW1), which was one of the most important part of the training dealing country reporting to the sixteen national reporting tables of global FRA 2005. It consisted of briefing on technical aspects of sixteen reporting tables, organization of working groups for “GW1” and explaining the Terms of Reference for this group work “GW1”.
Mr. Peter Holmgren presented (Annex 10.1) the format (working paper) of country reporting and associated common reporting templates for the sixteen tables. He justified the necessity of the suggested format, proves and associated templates and then explained suggested method, consisting of eight steps, to develop national data as an input to global FRA tables.
He justified the format and process on the basis of enhancement in transparency, traceability and eventual reduction in reporting burden of countries. He explained how the apparent increased reporting for FRA 2005 would ultimately lead to reduced reporting burden for the countries in the long run. He informed the participants that most of the sixteen tables and their global variables build on FRA 2000 tables and variables and are directly related to the six thematic areas that are common among the nine regional C&I processes. Further, that most of the global terms and definitions have been harmonized to enhance their utility with concerned international processes.
He informed the NCs that composition of countries in each of the eight working groups for group work 1 (GW1) has been designed randomly so as to provide them a global (mini-global) feeling. He requested them to appreciate this diversity of conditions in which forests reside and the variation in the quality and availability of information in different countries in their respective working groups for group work 1.
Ms. Hivy OrtizChour informed the participants about the composition (Annex 2) of each working group for group work 1 and requested that each working group should elect its chairperson. She also informed them that the members of FRA secretariat will serve as secretaries to these working groups and their names appear in document relating to composition of groups (Annex 2). She indicated to NCs the location (room number) where each working group will work during the day and suggested that each working group should complete its task by the end of the day including their reports on the group-work so that the same could be presented next day in the morning plenary session.
Mr. Alex Korotkov introduced (Annex 10.2) the terms of reference (TOR) for “GW1” (Annex 5) to the participants. He informed that the main purpose and task for each working group is to discuss and provide comments on rationale, scope, contents and definitions for each of the assigned tables as well as to go through each of the eight steps proposed for national reporting tables. He told them that for this purpose working groups can use either their own (country) data or the data in any of the five pilot reports. Lastly, that working groups have to provide their comments, conclusions, assessments and suggestions in the format suggested in the TOR.
Mr. Peter Holmgren distributed to participants a draft synthesis of the outputs of group work 1 from all the working groups. The chairperson of each working group then briefly presented their report and mentioned points, if any, not highlighted in the synthesis. The synthesised report was then opened for discussion and comments by all the participants. The comments given by the chairpersons and participants during this session and those given by them later in hardcopy through their respective chairperson have been incorporated in the output of group work 1. Chapter 4 provides detailed information on group work 1 and its output.
This sessions provides information on activities that compliment the FRA efforts like Information Framework, National Forest Assessment, NFP, MCPFE and Pan European C&I Process, Montreal C&I process, ITTO C&I Process, and INBAR and its activities. This section also includes a presentation by Mr. Heikki Granholm about the “Forest relating reporting under UNFCC given on November 21st, 2003.
Ms. Anne Branthomme briefed (Annex 11.1) the participants on a new initiative of FRA “Information Framework and Remote Sensing Survey” being developed in collaboration with UNEP. She told them it would complement the assessment based on existing country information and may calibrate and validate national data to enhance its utility at global and regional levels. It will independently provide detailed and reliable information on the process of changes in the forest cover (like deforestation, forest fragmentation, degradation), trends (statistical estimates with known precision) and will help in thematic studies like Identification of causal mechanisms of deforestation, and biodiversity and ecosystem assessments. More importantly, it will develop and enhance spatial links between global, regional and national data on forest, land use, and environment in addition to improving standardization, homogenization, compatibility and efficiency of information provided by different applications at different scales and levels.
The “Framework” plans to use a systematic sampling (about 1 % of land surface) on a global aerial grid of intersections at each 1-degree longitudes and latitudes. The size of a selected sample site is about 10 km x 10 km. It is directly linked to National Forest Inventory (NFI) or Assessment (NFA) tracts (1 km x 1 km) at the same intersection. It thus provides for calibration and validation of country data at regional and global levels.
The information framework builds on experience and networks of partners. It is strengthening past institutional arrangements and establishing new ones, like GTOS, GOFC-and GOLD etc., to maintain and sustain the “framework” and to regularly expand its content. It plans for continued improvement in the methods and technologies through active involvement of science and research communities.
The “Framework” plans to use remote sensing data (medium, high and very-high resolution satellite data (like Landsat, Spot, IRS, Ikonos) and aerial photos at regular temporal intervals (5-10 year intervals) and to keep all information at a website with open and immediate access to its content to all its users. Initially, it plans to deal with Landsat data at two points (1990 and 2000) in time at each sample site. FRA plans to undertake pilot studies in Central Africa and possibly in other places to test methodology and implementation of “Framework”. Beginning 2004, the “Framework” plans to coordinate and organize training of national experts to facilitate decentralization of the interpretation work and wishes to include the outputs” in global FRA 2005.
Mr. Mohamed Saket, FAO informed (Annex 11.2) the participants about “Support to National Forest Resources Assessment (NFA)”, a very important component of the FRA programme that deals with the country capacity building in forest assessments. The NFA is a national process to collect, manage, make available and analyse information on forest resources, their management and use covering the entire country, including also analysis, evaluations and scenario development for policy analysis and other uses. The national information on forests is needed to monitor and contain degradation, deforestation, and overexploitation, and to improve productive, protective, environmental and social functions. It is also useful in making plans for food security, which needs integration of information on forest resources with that other land uses in the country. He indicated that many international processes and conventions need this information but currently there are large gaps in such data.
The “Support to NFA” component of FRA facilitates generation new information and consists of interviews, direct observation and detailed national forest inventory. The basic design is systematic field sampling with permanent plots for long term monitoring. It has relatively low and adjustable sampling intensity (50 - 500 sample sites/country) according to country specific needs and has moderate cost covering moderate number of variables spanning all benefits (goods and services). It uses vegetation/land use classification system defined according to country’s specific needs. The plot distribution is systematic and follows intersection of latitude and longitude at each degree, or half-degree or even a quarter degree. At every such intersection location, a cluster of 4 plots of 0.5 ha each is laid on the ground and entered on a map showing land use and tree location. The data is collected and stored in a global database developed by FRA for later processing and analysis of the field data.
At present five projects are in progress in Cameroon, Zambia, Lebanon, Guatemala, and Philippines and agreements are under finalization with Bangladesh, Honduras, Nigeria and Vietnam and a regional initiative in West African sub-region. The ownership of such project is with the country and hence there is a quite high commitment by the countries to implement NFA.
Mr. Rodas presented (Annex 11.3) information to NCs on a ongoing project in Guatemala under “Support to National Forest Assessment” component of FRA. He indicated that Guatemala needed a National Forest Inventory (NFI) to produce the base line of information on its three main types of forests (Coniferous, Broadleaved, and Mixed). The project divided the country into six operating regions, based on administrative boundaries, land use, topography and socioeconomic aspects and used systematic sampling design with sampling intensity varying in different strata. The total number of sampling clusters were 114 with 456 plots. The data output from the project is designed to satisfy the needs of the six thematic areas of FRA 2005 as well as information on “Land Use” and “Total Tree Volume” for trees greater than 20 cm in diameter at breast height (Dbh).
Mr. Eduardo Mansur (Annex 11.4) enlightened the participants about the National Forest Programme (nfp) and explained its links with FRA both as provider of information to “nfp” and as recipient of information from NFP. Further, that FRA and “nfp” have same persons as their focal points in 19 countries and “nfp” web site has lot of complementary information for FRA.
He informed that “nfps” are country specific processes for policy formulation and implementation towards sustainable forest management. Further that the “nfp” is a broad concept that embraces any kind of national forest planning process developed under some guiding principles integrating all different roles, products and services provided by forests and trees. The “nfp” supports an inter-sectoral approach addressing impacts of forestry sector on other sectors and vice-versa. It promotes participation of all stakeholders in policy development, planning, implementation and monitoring.
Mr. Roman Michalak informed (Annex 11.5) the participants about Pan-European C&I process including its historical development since 1993 when the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) in its second meeting at Helsinki mandated this activity. MCPFE in its 1998 meeting in Lisbon provided Pan European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. In its fourth meeting in Vienna in 2003 the MCPFE finally adopted improved Indicators and related assessment guidelines. The MCPFE has also adopted an assessment guideline for Protected and Protective Forest and Other Wooded Land in Europe. He presented indicators against each of the criteria as approved by MCPFE.
He then traced the history or continuous and mutually beneficial relationship of Pan-European “C&I” process with FRA since Kotka III meeting in Finland leading to final outputs in FRA 2000 and TBFRA 2000 publications and current collaboration in ongoing work for FRA 2005 with its presence of its members in Advisory Group to global FRA. He also elaborated the facilitative role of UNECE/FAO in the reporting for MCPFE and FRA. He drew special attention to the latest publication of MCPFE (State of Europe’s Forest 2003) that uses the “C&I” framework and hoped for more intensive links with FRA in future.
Mr. W. Brad Smith (Annex 11.6) presented US experience and informed the participants that “C&I” is not some thing new and that forest mangers always had “C&I” but they were much simpler than what we see today as a follow up of 1992 UNCED meeting at Rio. Further that the approach of “Montreal” process of “C&I” is more holistic and at the same time more complex. It contains 7 criteria of which are roughly common with other “C&I” processes but many of its 67 variables differ with other “C&I” processes.
The international meeting at Guatemala in 2003, where all the nine “C&I” processes were present noted that most of the “Criteria” among them are similar and can be grouped or reformulated into seven criteria. Further, that many indicators are also similar and only some of the definitions are different. These findings lay very good context for future convergence among these processes. He also indicated that criteria (themes) of Montreal process map 1 to 1 criteria (themes) under FRA 2005. About 16 out of 67 indicators match with FRA variables with varying degree (7 good, 5 medium, 2 poor and 2 mixed) of satisfaction.
He informed that thematic report of US for Montreal process has been completed very recently and is available on web (www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain). Similarly, Montreal “C&I” process has just completed its report for 12 countries and has released it at the World Forestry Congress 2003. This is available on web (www.mpci.org/rep-pub/2003/contents_ehtml).
He felt that collection of consistent and reliable data is the first critical step to secure political support for sustainable forest management.
Mr. Steve Johnson informed (Annex 11.7) the participants about history and development of ITTO support to C&I processes starting from 1989 to date. This includes development of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests in 1998, Manual for the Application of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forest in 2000 and Reporting Formats during 2001- 2003 supported by regional training workshops.
He informed NCs that field-testing of C&I at forest management unit (FMU) level have been done in Malaysia (1), Indonesia (3), Ecuador (2), and Cameroon (1). He also indicated that about 25 % of 32 participating countries felt difficulty in obtaining data on 40-50% of the indicators and the main problem areas were biodiversity, and soil & water (no data). Some indicators at FMU level (especially endangered species and socio-economic measures) are more applicable at national level. Some indicators were overlapping and some had too general definitions to implement. He told that the “Reporting Format” developed in 2001 is consistent with perceived requirements of UNFF.
The field-testing showed main objective of many countries (forest managers) was certification, therefore, ITTO began developing auditing guidelines for SFM. These guidelines build on ITTO “C&I” and add another layer of “verifiers” to each of the indicator. Several countries are already working on standards of performance and national certification systems and will be best placed to provide information on SFM to ITTO and others.
He pointed out that there is a potential for partner organizations to collaborate on training and assistance in capacity building, mobilizing required resources and that more collaboration between different processes (ITTO/ATO already; 2004 FAO/ITTO Expert Consultation follow-up to CICI 2003) provides a good opportunity for further dialogue. ITTO plans to publish “Status of Tropical Forest Management” in 2004 and many member countries have already submitted first national C&I report for this purpose.
He also mentioned that ITTO needs to work with partners because ITTO understands that many countries will require more assistance than provided to date and that analysis and synthesis of results from country reports will require even more resources in ITTO. He informed NCs that ITTO considers that it is best to use existing data sets (C&I, TBFRA, FRA) and should resort to direct collection of information from countries only when it is essential. In this context, revision and updating of ITTO “C&I” and Reporting Format (scheduled for 2004/05) provides an excellent opportunity to work towards greater synergies with FRA, including possibility of a joint questionnaire approach.
Mr. Maxim Lobovikov briefed (Annex 11.8) the participants on International Network on Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR) and its activities and their links to FRA. He told participants that Bamboo and Rattan have created “Golden Revolution” as bamboo grows fast and can be harvested at short rotation specially when its biomass increases annually at the rate of about 30 percent, which is much higher than wood (2 to 3 percent). Further that bamboo has more cellulose then average wood. It is quite tolerant, adaptable, not demanding, environmentally friendly and produces more oxygen then an average tree and sequesters more carbon dioxide, enhances and fertilizes soil, reduces soil compaction and hardening, conserves and regulates water, protects slopes and river banks. He went into quite detail on uses and products of bamboo and rattan. He informed that unlike wood bamboo industrial products are new for the market and are overlooked by the national and international statistics. This is important as any miscalculation leads to misunderstanding and misallocation of the resources.
He told NCs that currently “Bamboo and Rattan” do not appear separately in FRA publications. INBAR can provide information on use and products of “Bamboo and Rattan” and FRA can provide information on extent of “Bamboo and Rattan” resources. He opined that such an exchange will be very useful for both the institutions and may satisfy requirement of the existing international database on resources, production and trade of “Bamboo and Rattan”.
Mr. Heikki Granholm from Methods, Inventories and Science Programme of UNFCCC, informed (Annex 11.9) NCs about the “Forest relating reporting under UNFCC“, its characteristics with examples of draft reporting tables.
He told that the characteristics of reporting are based on methodological work by IPCC and SBSTA. The “Forest” is included under LUCF/LULUCF that there is clear purpose and mandate of each reporting whose reporting guidelines are developed and negotiated by parties (countries). He also informed that IPCC has recently developed a “Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF (2003)” but new set of reporting tables is yet to be agreed upon.
He also briefed NCs on estimation of changes in carbon stocks and emissions for land categories and changes in land categories (Forest land, Cropland, Grassland, Settlements, Wetlands, and Other land). He further informed that the there is a standardized, electronic, format for reporting estimates of GHG emissions and removals and information on other inventories. The current format is designed to facilitate comparison of inventory data and trends among Annex I countries. The countries are required to provide explanation of qualitative information in National Inventory Reports.
He also briefed NCs on the following seven proposed draft reporting tables for LULUCF activities including their summary table.
A. Summary table
A.1. Afforestation and reforestation; lands not harvested during the first commitment period
A.2. Afforestation and reforestation; lands harvested during the first commitment period
A.3. Deforestation
A.4 Forest management
A.5. Cropland management
A.6. Grazing land management
A.7. Revegetation
Ms. Susan Braatz, secretariat of the UN Forum on Forests, informed (Annex 11.10) the participants on the International Forest Policy Dialogue, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), and their links with global FRA . She informed that UNFF desires to foster a common understanding of sustainable forest management and facilitate implementation of non-legally binding commitments on forests (IPF/IFF proposals for action). Further that the main IPF/IFF proposals for action by countries include the following,
• Improve national forest resource assessments
• Make information related to SFM widely available
• Encouraged countries to prepare national information on the management, conservation, and sustainable development of all types of forests as the basis for any consolidated information at the international level
• International and regional organizations
• Requests of IPF to FAO on FRA 2000
• Improve and streamline international reporting and information systems on forests
• Make adequate resources available for capacity-building for national reporting initiatives
She told the NCs that one of the main activities of the CPF is to “Streamline Forest Related Reporting” to reduce burden of countries and to improve quality and harmonization in reporting. For this purpose, UNFF has set up a task force, which has led to comparative analysis of international reporting requirements, plan to establish a CPF Portal on Forest Reporting, and proposal to develop a unified framework for international reporting on forests.
She informed NCs that UNFF also desires to find means to strengthen country capacity for monitoring, assessment and reporting on forests especially when the main activities of most of the CPF’s member relate to strengthening country capacity in providing forest related information, for example the following.
• FAO – assistance through GFRA, regional forest sector outlook studies, various regional C&I processes, and National Forest Programme Facility
• ITTO - development of national forest statistical information systems, 4 regional and 9 national training courses in the implementation of the ITTO C&I
• UNFCCC - information collection, analysis and dissemination for forest-related carbon inventories
• CIFOR – country-level testing and training related to C&I
• GEF – related to biodiversity, climate and land restoration projects
• World Bank – component of forestry projects
This session focussed on the second element of reporting under FRA 2005 that deals with information on additional complementary national variables on which countries may like to provide information to present a better and realistic picture of their forest resources. This reporting follows the framework of Thematic (Criteria) areas under C&I processes. Earlier presentations by C&I processes provided the necessary context to discuss thematic reporting under FRA 2005. This session presented the information needs and reporting format for FRA 2005 as well as briefed NCs on the two pilot reports (India and South Africa) that contain such thematic reporting.
Mr. Kailash Govil (Annex 12.1) presented to the participants the rationale, thematic areas and format of reporting proposed in FRA 2005. He informed NCs that FRA 2005 proposes to use the six of the seven thematic areas common among all the nine regional C&I processes. Further, that FRA proposes to subdivide the first and the last thematic areas leading to following eight thematic areas under which information is requested from the countries
1a. Extent of Forest
1b. Contribution to Carbon Cycle
2. Health and Vitality
3. Biodiversity
4. Productive Functions
5. Protective Functions
6a. Social Functions
6b. Economic Functions
He intimated that the information under each thematic area is required under four headings (Method and Approach, Relevant Variables, Source and Source Data, and Data on Additional Variables). The “Method and Approach” provides background on how the chosen variables were selected and data was collected. For example, South Africa pilot study uses framework of Criteria and Indicator process and India pilot study uses group convergence method for this purpose. The “Relevant variables” provides the list of variable chosen for reporting under a thematic area. The “Source and Source Data” provides documentation and reference for the information collected on each chosen variable. Finally , “Data on Additional Variable” presents the data on each of the chosen variable under a Thematic Area. He used thematic reporting in pilot study for India as an example to briefly explain the concept of thematic reporting to NCs.
Mr. J. K. Rawat presented (Annex 12.2) in detail the thematic reporting in pilot study for India. He focussed on the “review of sustainability of forest resource” an option under thematic reporting. He also informed NCs that Forest Survey of India (FSI) initiated the filed work on inventory of “trees outside forests” (TOF) in 1991-92 and now after ten years of field work and experience, FSI has developed a methodology to assess the extent of tree wealth outside forest areas (rural and urban) and presented the data on TOF in India.
He explained the thematic reporting and Group Convergence Method (GCM) used in the India pilot study. He informed the participants that a group of 30 experts representing foresters, scientists, academicians, biologists, NGO’s, etc. from different institutions was identified and invited to participate in expert group deliberations or consultation using GCM. FSI organized two expert group consultations with a gap of about two weeks. The first expert group consultation identified the variables for each thematic area totalling to 48 variables for all the six (eight with sub division) Thematic Areas. During this consultation, the experts (group) also assigned relative weights to each thematic area and variable using GCM and distributed responsibility among them (25 experts) to compile data on these 48 variables. The second expert (group) consultation focused on assigning value or scores to each variable based on their data and trends using GCM for finalizing scores). The Expert group also assessed the data quality. The product of the relatives scores of Thematic areas and the relative score of variable lead to the score of sustainability of forest resources in India. The exercise indicated that forests in India are sustainable though on the margin.
Ms. Sebueng Kelatwang briefed (Annex 12.3) the participants on South Africa’s pilot study and told them that the thematic reporting is based on a consultative process that was undertaken to develop Criteria and Indicators in South Africa. It consisted of eight principles (thematic areas) of which seven are similar to FRA 2005 thematic areas. The eighth principle (thematic area) is unique to South Africa i.e. advancement of previously disadvantage communities. These principles are supported by 72 variables with 139 measures. About 54 out of 72 variables are similar to FRA. Therefore, these variables were packaged under the respective 6 thematic area for thematic reporting to FRA. She explained thematic reporting under each of the six thematic areas to NCs using the information contained in the South Africa pilot study.
This session focused on enhancing role of regional offices in facilitating country reporting to global FRA. This group work (GW3) planned to provide necessary guidance and linkages for development of regional and national work plans for implementing FRA 2005 i.e. developing a timetable to take necessary steps leading to country reporting in November 2003. Initially regional officers introduced themselves and the region to the participants and during group works, they facilitated development of regional and national work plans.
Mr. Peter Lowe, Forestry Planning Officer introduced “Regional Africa Office” (RAFO) to the participants (Annex 13.1). He told them that the six most important issues in this region are (a) deforestation and forest degradation, (b) effects of demographics, (c) food security and poverty alleviation, (d) wood fuel, (e) forests and water and (f) biodiversity and wildlife. He also informed that the key responses of FAO to the above six priorities of the region include (a) development of forestry outlook study for Africa, (b) support form national forest programme facility, (c) support to NEPAD, (d) support to COMIFAC, (e) collaboration with SREOS, and (f) coordination of forest research (FORNESSA).
He informed the participants that most of the land is in dry-zone and LFCC and most of the “forests” are marginal woodlands. The land use is not generally formalized and much of the forests are fragmented and subject to traditional and community ownership. Most of the forests that are outside formal reserves have no declared management objective. Fire is one of the important detrimental factor to the forests. The wood removal is part of formal economy and well reported. The NWFPs are not part of the formal economy and not well reported. These are more related to subsistence use and food security. The employment in forestry in this region plays a very important role in poverty alleviation.
M. Kashio, Forest Resources Officer, introduced (Annex 13.2) the “Regional Asia Pacific Office” (RAPO) to the participants and told that it has 38 FAO member countries and spans about 3,005 million ha. (accounting for 23% of the world’s land area) with total forest of about 699 million ha. covering 23 % of the total land area (about 18% of total forests in the world).
He informed NCs that the main contributors to degradation and deforestation in the region include (a) advance of agricultural frontiers, (b) pastoral agriculture, (c) cropping, (d) shifting cultivation, (e) urbanization, (f) industrial forestry, (g) forest fires (deliberate and accidental).
He also mentioned that the region is promoting various activities that contribute to sustainable forest management like forest management plans, model forests, criteria and indicators, NFP, reduced impact logging, codes of practice, and promotion of protected area management (Tiger Paper, RAPO Conservation strategy, Asian elephant programmes).
He stressed that promotion of SFM in this region needs enhancement of environmental priorities and review of functions and responsibilities of forestry institutions (major institutional restructurings). He informed NCs that the region is experiencing enhancement of decentralized forest management with emphasis on participatory approach that is linked with rural development and this trend is redefining roles of foresters and demanding new and different skills.
Mr. Alex Korotkov, UNECE Timber Branch, introduced (Annex 13.3) the European Region with special reference to UNECE Timber Branch that coordinated and made substantial contribution for the European region to FRA 2000. The activities of UNECE Timber Branch are designed to fit into both UN and FAO formats. Its work programme is reviewed and formulated every 4 years and is annually monitored by TC and EFC bureaux. It has joint programme with FAO, ILO, MCPFE, EU, EEA, Eurostat and UNEP etc and its stakeholders include WWF, IUCN, World Bank, CSD, Industrial associations, forest owners and researchers. Its work span Europe, North America and CIS countries. This unit will continue to work closely with FRA to facilitate European country reporting to FRA 2005.
UNECE Timber Branch has five main areas of work that include Forest Resource Assessment, Market and Statistics, European Forest Sector Outlook studies, Technology, management and training, Policy and cross-sectoral issues. Recently, it coordinated MCPFE C&I report for 2003. The unit has implemented various special studies that may be useful for FRA 2005 like Biodiversity analysis, Carbon flow analysis, and Endangered species analysis. It has developed Forestry Country Profiles and plans to do similar work in future with focus on CEEC countries. It has contributed substantially to Outlook Studies and to understanding of changes in European Forest Resources.
Mr. Mengarelli introduced (Annex 13.4) the “Latin American and Caribbean” regional Office (RLCO) to the participants and told that “Information” is one of the priority to the region and that the 22nd session of the Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission recommended FAO to promote a regional information system on forest resources by identifying information requirements and harmonizing methodologies. He mentioned that recommendations of a technical panel in this respect include,
(a) enhance regional participation in future global Forest Resources Assessments and promotion of participatory integrated methodologies including assessments for shared or trans-boundary ecosystems, such as the Amazon, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the Pacific Biological Corridor, the Caribbean Islands and the Chaqueño Forest Sub region,
(b) exchange of technical and methodological information between countries of the region,
(c) include the reporting requirements of relevant conventions in the global and national assessments, and
(c) develop regional protocols for evaluation and validation of general information.
He also introduced the “Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission”(LACFC) to the participants and noted that it should be used as a natural environment for cooperation and channel of communication for FRA purposes and for this purpose FRA should consider strengthening of the Commissions.
Mr. Hassan Abdel Nour introduced (Annex 13.5) “Regional Near East Office” (RNEO) to the participants. He informed that all countries in the region are “Low Forest Cover Countries” (LCFCC) countries that are with less than 10% forest / tree cover and only 11 countries have more than one million ha of forests. Majority of the areas are desert, arid or semi-arid and only some of the areas fall in humid zone and high rainfall savannah. Most of the areas have significant “Trees Outside Forests” with “Non-Wood Forest Products”.
He presented photograph of typical forest types in different countries in the region to give NCs a feel of forest resources in the region like humid zone forests in Jordan, Temperate forests in Kazakhstan, Savannah-Mixed forests in Sudan, Sand dune fixation in Iran, Urban forest and trees in Tehran, Shelterbelts-Toshka in Egypt, Pistachia (a NWFP) in Iran, Range lands in Kazakhstan, Invasive species in Yemen, Agro-forestry in Sudan and Agro-forestry in Yemen.
There is no regional office in North America and North American Forestry Commission (NAFC) of FAO looks after some of the regional work. NAFC was established in 1958, and provides a policy and technical forum for Canada, Mexico and the United States to discuss and address forest issues on a North American basis. NAFC carries out its mandate by supporting research and natural resource management activities through seven working groups that explore issues of concern to the three countries. These working groups include atmospheric change, fire management, forest products, insects and diseases, silviculture, forest inventory and monitoring forest genetic resources.
The chairperson of each working group presented the outcome of their working group for “Group Work 2” (C&I Links with FRA) to the participants in the plenary session for discussion and comment by all the NCs. The details are provided in chapter 5 that focuses on the group work 2.
The chairperson of each working group presented the output of their working group for “Group Work 3” (Developing regional and national work plans for implementing FRA 2005) to the participants in the plenary session. The details are provided in section chapter 6 that focuses on the group work 3.
The session was chaired by Mr. El Hadji Sène, Director FOR. Mr. Peter Holmgren presented a brief summary and follow up action to the participants. He briefly informed the participants about progress made during the training week on national reporting tables, thematic reporting and development of work plans to implement FRA 2005.
Mr. Holmgren informed that the FRA secretariat will consider all the suggestions made by the participants when editing final guidelines for country reporting and associated technical material including improved explanation and examples. He informed that FAO plans to achieve this by the end of the year 2003. He also agreed to the suggestion that copies of GPG (IPCC) when officially available from IPCC will be circulated to all the NCs. He, further, indicated that support to National Forest Assessment may be extended to as many countries as possible and FRA will continue to implement independent remote sensing to validate and to fill gaps in information.
Mr. Holmgren said diverse scenarios have emerged from group work 2 (regarding thematic reporting). For countries, where the C&I processes are well established and active and have recently published reports like Pan-European (MCPFE) and Montreal C&I processes, there FRA may not further enhance utilities and may consider to use an updated version of their country reports. For countries, where the C&I process are relatively dormant and or inactive, there is a possibility to use FRA as a vehicle to support and or revive their C&I processes.
He agreed with participants suggestions that FRA role should be to provide stability, give technical and political support to NC and to interface between country and information demanding international forest related processes.
He informed NCs that following common points that have surfaced during group work 3 on the development of work plans to implement FRA 2005 during Group Work 3.
• Development of a National task force of group of experts
• Organization of Meetings and Workshops at National and Regional level
• Establishment of Electronic networking among NCs and
• Enhanced role of regional offices in facilitating country reporting to FRA 2005
Many participants requested that FAO should provide as early as possible technical and financial support and build national capacities necessary to implement FRA 2005 in time. There was a call for addressing unique conditions and needs of small island countries. UNECE and RAPO raised the question of training the national correspondents of countries not present in this meeting, whose number may be bigger than those present here and suggested early regional workshop to fill this gap.
Mr. El Hadji Sène, Director spoke the concluding words of support and thanks. He expressed his recognition of important and valuable past contributions of NCs to FRA and appreciated their presence in such a large number at this meeting, which further indicated their continued support to FRA and high appreciation of the utility of this meeting. He informed that he has listened to the last part of the deliberations of this session that demanded resources to build country capacities to implement FRA 2005. He acknowledged that it will be a mighty task for FRA to find resources for most of them. He advised them not to wait for these resources and try to use their own resources, how so ever small they may be, to develop a strategy at national level to asses their forest resources. He reiterated that FAO desires to build a long term strong alliance with all countries for forest resource assessments. Mr. Sène thanked all the participants for coming and making very productive contributions. He also thanked all the staff of FAO by saying that “a meeting is a like a tree, what makes it useful but what you do not see are its roots, that is the people behind it who work hard to make it useful”.
1 FAO 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 - Main report. Forestry Paper 140 www.fao.org/forestry/fra2000report
