The “Group Work 1 (GW1)” dealt with the format, process, contents and terms and definitions relating to “National Reporting Tables” (Working Paper 71b). All the participants (Annex 1) were organized into eight working groups (Annex 2) working with constellation of each working group maximizing as many regions as possible. Such composition of working groups to address “GW1” was designed to provide a cross-regional environment to each participant so that they can appreciate global variation in views, perceptions, capacities, and needs at national level for global FRA.
Each working group had seven “tables” to review of which four tables (T1. “Extent”, T3 “Designation”, T4 “Characteristics” and T5 “Growing Stock”) were common to all the working groups meaning that these four national reporting tables were reviewed by all eight groups and rest of the twelve table were reviewed by two working groups. In addition, each working group was requested to go through all the eight steps (making national data ready for input into global reporting tables) for at least one of the tables (Table T1) and to provide their comments on the definitions, process and format of reporting. Following provides consolidated output from the eight working groups. It incorporates individual comments and suggestions from plenary sessions as well as written comments given to FRA secretariat through respective chairpersons.
This section presents the Terms of Reference for “Group Work 1” in brief while Annex 5 contains the complete TOR. Each working group was required to review entire process (following eight steps) for reporting national data for the global tables including contents and terms and definitions related to them.
A. Global Classifications & Definitions
B. National Data Sources
C. National Classifications & Definitions
D. National Data
E. Calibration
F. Estimation & Forecasting
G. Reclassification into FRA 2005 Classes
H. National Information for FRA 2005 Global Tables
The working groups were requested to provide comments on of the assigned tables with regard to their scope and relevance for FRA 2005 as well as international reporting needs. In addition, they were tasked to intimate their assessment of availability of “information” and “time series” for reporting. Finally, they were expected to inform on other issues relevant for them like need for additional resources including capacity building to implement FRA 2005. Following is consolidated version of the outputs from each of the eight working groups. First it provides working group comment in general and then by each of the sixteen tables.
There was general agreement among countries on the approach to reporting, documentation, transformation and classification of national data for sixteen tables. Some countries expressed need for more detailed guidelines and examples to understand and implement the methods correctly of reporting on sixteen tables. The eight steps (A to H) of the reporting process for each reporting table and the format proposed (Working paper 71b) were also considered satisfactory and acceptable. Following is a consolidation of comments on each of the eight steps.
A. Global classifications
The countries expressed desire to make only essential changes in terms and definitions to maintain consistency in time series of national and global data and that FRA must keep this in mind during final reformulation of Terms and Definitions for FRA 2005.
B. National sources
The countries indicated that their data sources may be databases as well as official publications but sometimes these may not be officially sources, which may create some problem. They also mentioned that the desired information may be scattered between different agencies, and therefore will mean financial and other support to NCs to retrieve and report the information.
C. National classification
Many countries spoke about the need of “clear” national definitions in their countries that will enable them to provide good report.
D. National data
Some countries were of the view that report should include error estimates or some statements about it.
E. Calibration
Most of the countries appreciated the need of calibration to provide consistency in international reporting but at the same time expressed need to have access to their national source data. There were questions about which method to use for this purpose. The consensus was that it is up to the countries to select any scientific method; however, it should be mentioned clearly in their country report.
F. Estimating / Forecasting
Some countries expressed their desire to report from actual years in national sources instead of forecasting for 2005 because additional non-quantitative data may be needed to make estimates / forecasts and one may need to compare forecasts made in FRA 2000 with new available data from countries, and lastly forecasting is more complicated than estimating. The consensus was that the interpolation, estimations and forecasting are necessary for global reporting. However when estimates and forecasts are done and reported in global data then this fact must be clearly indicated in the global reports, as well as who has done this, either in a separate column or in footnotes, because at times these figures may be different from national data and reports.
G. Reclassification
The group work revealed following three basic approaches or suggestions to reclassify national data into global classes. The group consensus was to use any of these three approaches in a country that best meets its needs and which can be justified.
o Inventory Database Approach - Build global data directly from databases to reduce the risk for double bias in two steps of conversion.
(Example: Sweden Pilot Report. Working Paper 77 )
o Percentage Approach - Classify national data based on the degree and level (percentage) it matches with global class.
(Example: South Africa Pilot Report. Working Paper 75)
o Closest Class Approach- Classify a national class entirely to a single global class or a year, which is roughly similar, or near to it to reduce the risk of misallocations of inventory data and bias in two steps of conversion and to maintain direct links with published reviewed reports.
(Example: India Pilot Report. Working Paper 78 ).
Many countries requested that FRA should provide more detailed description of the reclassification steps with necessary examples for better understanding and national reporting.
H. Input to Global table
Some countries desired more descriptive instructions with examples to explain the sub-steps involved in moving from step G (reclassification) to H (input to global data).
Following presents the output of group work 1 by each of the sixteen tables. It reviews rationale, scope, variables and their definitions.
Rationale and scope
Group work suggested modifying the rationale statement for the table because the contents of the table have the capacity to provide information only on net changes in extent of forests and other wooded lands and not on “deforestation” in isolation. Further that the contents also help to “understand flow of benefits from forests”; therefore, this should be added to the rationale.
The group appreciated the positive move by FRA to provide information on extent of “Trees outside of forests” but indicated some problems in its implementation (see under variables). It also suggested changing the name of the table to reflect all variables contained in the table rather than just “Forest” and “Other Wooded Lands”.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work suggested that it should be made clear that 0.5 ha threshold is applicable to all classes (“Forests”, “Other Wooded land” and “Other land with trees”) as this is not very clear now. It also advised to check logical relationships between definitions and to provide definitions of “Tree” and “Trees Outside of Forests”.
Forest
The group work advised that the reformulation of definition of “Forests” may create misunderstanding and suggested to keep the definition of “Forest” as in FRA 2000. The group work questioned the joint use of tow terms “cover” (more correctly: tree presence) and “land use” to define the “forests” and suggested to put biophysical thresholds first in definition, and other land uses as exclusions (as in FRA 2000).
Other Wooded Land
The group work advised to continue use of the definition of “Other Wooded Land” as in FRA 2000. It also mentioned that thresholds other than 5 meters may be desired because of national classification systems used (e.g. Canada, US, Russia, Australia) for defining “Other Wooded Land” (OWL). Another suggestion was to use species lists (tree species vs. shrub species) to easily distinguish between “OWL” and “Forest”.
Other land with tree cover
The group work indicated that majority of groups find this variable useful and relevant and therefore asked FRA to keep this variable. It requested FRA to clarify (a) “tree cover” refers to which tree species (all trees or only forest trees), and that (b) that biophysical attributes of “forest” are applicable to this category of land use also. It suggested that as an alternative species list might be used as to distinguish between “Other Land with Tree Cover (OLwT) and “Forest”. However, the group work was also concerned about availability of data on this variable in many countries. The group, therefore, suggested to include the possibility to use variable at regional level instead of global and to adapt to national definitions and data. The group work requested FRA to provide clear guidelines supported with sufficient examples to report on this variable including instructions on how to handle n.a. (data not available) cases to make total area fit. One of the suggestion to deal with this was to subordinate this variable to “Other land” or put the area figures under “Other land” if no separate data was available on this variable. The group work also suggested using the word “built-up areas” instead of “urban areas”.
Other land
The group work requested FRA to provide detailed guidelines supported with sufficient examples to report on this variable so that it is clear what is included, what is not included under this variable, and it suggested including other land use classes.
Inland water
The group work requested FRA to provide detailed guidelines with examples and notes for better implementation and to answer queries like how to handle temporary water surfaces.
Availability of data
The group work revealed that there may be difficulty in getting data on OLwT from many countries although some countries may have it. Further, that some of the data may have partial coverage in the country and some regional data may be available through C&I processes. The group work raised concern about availability of information at three points in time for trend estimates in some countries.
Rationale and scope
The group work revealed acceptance of design of Table 2. However it commented that the information on ownership is useful at national level but is of low utility to global level.”
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work suggested that words “Forests” and “Other Wooded Land” should be added to qualify the ownership. Another suggestion was to consider “religious institutions as community (public ownership).
Availability of data
The group work revealed that countries have information on this variable but the level of “reliability” of information is generally medium.
Rationale and scope
The group work indicated that rationale is all right but needs some reformulation to make it easy to understand. It advised to rename the table from “Designation” to “Management Objective” as the table mostly deals with managed forests (additional variable may be needed “not managed” or “not designated”).
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work requested FRA to better define the word “dominating” used in the definition of variables and suggested that “main” or “prevailing function” may be a better substitutes for “dominating”.
The group work advised that since the variables for this table are not mutually exclusive, therefore, the sum of their areas should be allowed to exceed 100%. One of the working groups suggested that this table should consist of four sub-tables with two columns (Production and Non Production forests, Protective and Non-Protective forests, Conservation and Non-Conservation forests, Social Services forests and non Social Services forests) for “Forests” and similar four sub-tables for “Other Wooded Lands”. The group work expressed concerns that political considerations may influence the reporting (subjective interpretation) under this table. The group work revealed that it be better if the information is not asked separately for “Forest” and “OWL” since national data in many countries is not organised in this manner. The group work indicated that possibly there would be low comparability on this data between countries. In this connection, the group work also drew attention of FRA to global classification scheme of IUCN.
Production
The group work advised to include one more variable “Production Other Wooded Lands” so that all categories are represented in this table.
Protective
The group work suggested adding protection of human settlements and infrastructure as additional protective function of forests.
Conservation
The group works appreciated the name to distinguish it from “Protected Areas” and “Protective functions”.
Social services
The group work appreciated the importance of this class and suggested that it is important to include social functions and relate it to table 15. It also revealed need for additional table on values of social services.
Multiple use
The group work requested to provide more detailed description of the variable with examples. It also suggested using wording like “no dominating designation of the above” for defining this category or variable and considering changing its name to “Other use”
Rationale and scope
The group work indicated that rational and scope of the table is all right.
Variables, terms and definitions
One of the suggestion form the group work provided to simplify and use regional variables instead (globally only “natural forests” and “forest plantations”).
Primary Forests
The group work suggested that use of term “Primary Natural Forests” instead of “Primary Forests” might better describe the variable.
Modified natural
The group work suggested providing more explanation to provide distinction between “modified natural” and “semi-natural” categories. One of the working groups suggested to keep this “term” or category but with necessary modifications in the definitions and to include all naturally regenerated forests of native species (except primary forests) in this category. Majority of the working groups for this group work suggested merging “modified natural” category with “semi-natural” category, as they did not see clear distinction between the two.
Semi-natural
One of the working groups proposed to include all planted forests, not classified as plantations in this category but indicated some problems of identification in old boreal stands. One suggestion was to include planting/seeding of native species when it is not linear, regularly spaced etc.
Productive plantation
The group work (with individual exceptions) suggested to go back to the FRA 2000 definition that is to include native species (linear, regularly spaced, few species) in the definition of plantations.
Protective plantations
The group work supported to split plantations by productive and protective functions; however, concerns were raised on the benefits and on the distinction with one working group clearly against it.
The group work indicated similar remarks for “Other Wooded lands” including adding “Productive Other Wooded Land” plantation.
Rationale and scope
The group work suggested including growing stock of “Other Wooded lands” also in this table. The group work indicated that although it is good to have UNFCCC connection good but UNFCCC expectations may be unrealistic. One individual suggestion was to indicate that commercial growing stock takes into account environmental, legal and economic aspects into consideration.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work stressed the need for establishing global threshold for minimum diameter for FRA 2005 as was done for FRA 2000. The work group appreciated the plan to follow IPCC guidelines for biomass for which the estimates of growing stock from this table will be used. The group work provided two suggestions for the minimum diameter (0 cm or 10 cm) and a general agreement to accept any deviation from this in the national data and standards.
Availability of data
The group work indicated that state of availability of data on growing stock in many countries is poor and that most of these countries lack necessary resources to improve data collection and reporting on growing stock.
Rationale and scope
The group work indicated that the rationale and scope are alright but suggested that the reporting should include also biomass stock for OWL. It also opined that the reporting should be harmonized with the Kyoto and IPCC requirements. The group work advice for continued harmonization with IPCC is desirable and that FRA specifications should follow the new Land use Change and Forestry (LUCF) sector Good Practice Guidance (GPG) of IPCC.
Variables, terms and definitions
Many countries requested FRA to provide more detailed guidelines with examples to illustrate how to calculate biomass from volume (growing stock) data from forest inventories or studies. The group work advised that definitions of biomass should be tightened to include bark (over bark) and foliage and the reporting should indicate biomass by components (stem, roots, foliage etc.). Further for woody biomass the breakdown should be given by trees, shrub and bushes although this may mean additional volume expansion factors (VEF) and biomass expansion factors (BEF).
Availability of data
The group work revealed that many countries need assistance in developing conversion factors, detailed guidelines and algorithm (biomass functions BEF). The group work noticed that some countries may miss some data on OWL while in some data is still in process but not yet available. The group work brought out strong concern of the countries that quality and availability of information depends on BEF factors, which are not available at the national level. There was unanimity in the group work over the demand that new set of GPG of IPCC should be circulated to all the National Correspondents to facilitate understanding of the concepts, to know the default BEF values and finally, to make better reporting to FRA 2005.
Rationale and scope
The group work indicated that the rationale and scope are alright but suggested that the reporting should also include Carbon stock for OWL. It also opined that the reporting should be harmonized with the Kyoto and IPCC requirements. The group work advised for continued harmonization with IPCC to ensure that FRA specifications follow the Good Practice Guidance (GPG) of IPCC.
Variables, terms and definitions
Some countries requested FRA to provide more detailed guidelines with examples to illustrate how to calculate carbon from biomass figures in Table 6 and how to estimate Soil Carbon. The group work advised that it should be clearly mentioned that FRA definitions are based on IPCC definitions. The group work was concerned on national reporting on “Soil Carbon” because information on “Soil Carbon” in some countries may only be available at sub-national or local level.
Availability of data
The group work revealed that many countries need more detailed guidelines with examples and information on conversion (biomass to carbon and estimate soil carbon) factors to report under this table. The group work noticed that some countries data is still in process but not available while in some may miss some data on OWL. The group work brought out strong concern of the countries that quality and availability of information depends on BEF factors, which are currently not available at the national level. There was a unanimous demand to FRA to circulate new set of GPG of IPCC to all the National Correspondents.
Rationale and scope
The group work was satisfied with the rationale and scope of the table.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work indicated that this table should consider biotic agents instead of just diseases and insects. It also suggested adding other disturbances like catastrophes, hurricanes, drought and cyclones as well as impacts of acid rain. The group work also suggested that it would be desirable to include degradation of forest if possible particularly for selective extraction. One individual suggestion was to indicate to the countries that they have to report only newly affected area and not the area that stands affected from disturbances in earlier years.
Availability of data
The group work revealed that information may be available for plantations but it may be difficult to report trends in degradation.
Rationale and scope
The group work felt that rational and scope of the table is fine.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work was however concerned about information on endangered species especially for countries that are not signatories to IUCN but are signatories to CITES. This was considered important as both maintain list of threatened species. The group work requested FRA to issue detailed guidelines in this respect. One individual observation that if the inventory specification does not match the species present on the ground then national reporting may provide information by inventory specification rather than what is on the ground.
Availability of data
The group work identified that generally partial information is available for forest tree species because some of species, that are considered less important, are grouped together in the inventories like “other species” or “miscellaneous species”.
Rationale and scope
The group work felt comfortable with the rational and scope of the table.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work indicated that it should be clearly mentioned that the data in this table should be compatible or match with Table 5 (Growing Stock). Some of the countries suggested that the unit of reporting should be flexible while some were of the view that it is difficult to quantify. One individual suggestion was to use “area” under species rather than “growing stock” as the later does not distinguish monoculture from mixed and others.
Availability of data
The group work indicated that many countries have only partial information and need resources and technical assistance to collect the data.
Rationale and scope
The group work indicated that the rationale of the table needs modification as the word “sustainable potential” seems misplaced because there is no information in any of the tables relating to annual increment of growing stock. One individual suggestion was to use “sustainable level of use”.
Variables, terms and definitions
Some of the working groups suggested that over bark is more desirable for both variables while other groups appreciated the utility of under bark reporting, as it is compatible with international reporting on production and trade. Some working groups considered the option of including “felling”. Some group wanted to clarify that forecasted average figure for 2005 is not only for 2005 but also for the period 2003-2007. One individual request was to clarify whether it includes “forest residues” collected for fuel.
Availability of data
The group work indicated that many countries may have difficulties in providing data on fuelwood removals because of illegal and unrecorded removals and poor information on household use.
Rationale and scope
All working groups, except one working group which felt that “economic health” may not be relevant phrase, found the rationale and scope acceptable and satisfactory.
Variables, terms and definitions
Some working groups expressed the need for more detailed guidelines with examples to explain valuation of non-marketed products and to handle devaluated national currencies.
Availability of data
No comments
Rationale and scope
The group work found rationale and scope of the table satisfactory. One individual suggestion was to add that it does not include “services”.
Variables, terms and definitions
No comments.
Availability of data
The group work felt that national information both for marketed and non-marketed components of most of NWFPs is incomplete and that many countries have information only for few NWFPs.
Rationale and scope
The group work found rationale and scope of the table satisfactory.
Variables, terms and definitions
No comments.
Availability of data
The group work felt that national information both for marketed and non-marketed components of most of the NWFPs is incomplete and that many countries have information on few NWFP. An individual request was to provide more detailed guidelines and explanation to clarify “market value”.
Rationale and scope
The group work welcomed coverage of this information and felt that rationale and scope were satisfactory. One working group indicated that “social function” has different meaning in different countries and therefore information across countries may not be comparable. An individual request was to use “bonds” or “links” instead of “bondage” in the text of rationale.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work requested FRA to provide more detailed guidelines with examples and further clarify the definition of “sites” and “social functions” with more explanations.
Some individuals felt that number of visitors may not be a good reporting unit due to difficulty in finding data and that it is may be better to indicate area of sites. Some other participants were of the view that whole forests is for the social purposes and that this table therefore, should include all social and economic benefits from forests. Further, that proposed limiting of variables to cover only the recreation and spiritual needs presents a reduced social role of forests for example it fails to highlight contribution of forests to livelihoods of communities. On individual suggestion was that “visits” rather than “visitors” may be better variable.
Availability of data
One working group felt that FRA may like to provide detailed instructions with examples, probably in consultation with social scientists to collect the data for this table. Another working group also expressed difficulty in identification of a “site” for social function” and suggested that the reporting on this table should be linked with table 3 (Designation). Another suggestion was to change the name of the variable to “sites managed under social responsibility”.
Rationale and scope
The group work appreciated inclusion of this information in FRA 2005 and agreed with rationale and scope of this table.
Variables, terms and definitions
The group work demanded guidelines that are more detailed with explanations and examples to help NCs in developing inputs for this table. The group work wanted specific instructions to deal employment relating to temporary employees, mixed tasks employments, managers, informal employment and self-employment. Some groups requested that the name of the variables under global definition and input tables should match like in other tables to maintain consistency through out the document.
Availability of data
The group works indicated that this table may require additional efforts and resources than other national reporting tables because its information will usually come from more than one agency.
National Correspondents present in the training participated in group work 1 through eight working groups as indicated in the following table.
Working groups for Group-Work 1
Working Group for Group Work 1 |
Name of Participating Countries |
Advisory Group, FAO Regional Office and Others |
1 |
Albania, Australia, Brazil, Cyprus Dominica, Finland, Germany , Iran, Latvia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand, Uganda, Zambia, and Trinidad & Tobago |
Mr E. Ramesteiner (AG) |
2 |
Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, India, Kenya, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Myanmar, New Zealand, Seychelles, St. Kitts-Nevis, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, UK, and USA |
Mr. M. Kashio (FAO RAP) Mr M. Lobovikov (INBAR) |
3 |
Bhutan, Burundi, Chile, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Hungary, Malawi, Moldova, Namibia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, South Africa, St. Vincent & The Grenadines, and Swaziland |
Mr. H. Abdel-Nour (FAO RNE) Mr Jinhua Zhang (UNEP) |
4 |
Brazil, Cambodia, Gambia, Italy, Malaysia, Mauritius, Montserrat, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Suriname, and Mozambique |
|
5 |
Armenia, Guyana, Ireland, Lithuania, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine |
Mr Peter Lowe (FAO RAF) Mr. M. Mabrouk (Alexandria University) Roman Michalak (AG) |
6 |
Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri-Lanka, and Sweden |
Brian Haddon (AG) Alexander Korotkov (AG) |
Working Group for Group Work 1 |
Name of Participating Countries |
Advisory Group, FAO Regional Office and Others |
7 |
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Spain, Uruguay, and Venezuela |
Mr. Mario Mengarelli (FAO LAC) |
8 |
Algeria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, TChad, Cameroon, Congo, Djibouti, France, Guinea Bissau, Guinée Repub. Of (Conakry), Mali, Morocco, Niger, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, and Tunisia |
