Consultation en ligne sur la première version des Directives volontaires de la FAO sur le suivi forestier national
Il est indispensable, pour améliorer la gestion des ressources forestières, de disposer d’une information fiable sur les forêts. Il n’est toutefois pas rare que cette information aille au-delà des limites des forêts : elle peut, par exemple être utilisée comme indicateur de la biodiversité, de l’hydrologie et de la conservation du sol. Il faut également disposer d’une information accessible et de haute qualité sur les forêts pour répondre aux exigences en matière de rapports dans le cadre de nombreux accords internationaux, comme la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique.
Pour obtenir une information opportune et fiable sur les forêts à différents niveaux, des orientations claires sont nécessaires sur la façon de collecter, compiler et analyser l’information. Dans ce contexte, le Comité des Forêts (COFO 21) a recommandé, à sa 21e session tenue en septembre 2012, que la FAO continue à soutenir les efforts des états membres pour renforcer les systèmes nationaux de suivi des forêts (NFMS).
La préparation des directives volontaires sur le suivi national des forêts a commencé en septembre 2012. Les directives proposeront une série de principes de bonnes pratiques, étayée par un ensemble d’outils de prise de décision pour la planification et la mise en œuvre de systèmes nationaux de suivi des forêts fondés sur des principes scientifiques.
La phase I du processus d’élaboration a déjà été réalisée (et acceptée par le COFO 22 en juillet 2014); cette phase incluait l’élaboration d’une définition du suivi national des forêts, ainsi qu’une description de la portée et des principes des directives (sections I et II). La phase II qui est en cours sera une compilation de bonnes pratiques et de recommandations techniques sur le suivi national des forêts (section III).
La première version des directrices volontaires sur le suivi national des forêts section III a été élaborée et elle est disponible à ce lien (en anglais). Le Département des forêts de la FAO vous invite à apporter vos contributions pour l’améliorer, dans le cadre d’un processus de consultation, avant de parvenir à une version définitive et la soumettre à une révision externe par les pairs. Ces contributions pourront être apportées à travers une consultation en ligne gérée par le Forum FSN. Les directives seront soumises à la considération du COFO lors de sa 23e session en juillet 2016.
Vos commentaires et contributions sont les bienvenus sur tous les chapitres de la section III, mais en particulier sur les aspects suivants :
- Cette version aborde-t-elle de façon adéquate tous les éléments requis pour mettre sur pied et maintenir un système national de suivi des forêts ?
- Quels autres aspects techniques, logistiques ou politiques devraient être abordés dans le document ?
- Étant donné que les directives volontaires élaborées devront être utilisées par les administrateurs des systèmes nationaux de suivi des forêts, quels sont les aspects spécifiques de la section III à améliorer pour atteindre cet objectif ?
- Y a-t-il des contenus redondants qui pourraient être supprimés pour rendre le document plus concis ?
Nous invitons tous les participants à nous présenter des études de cas pertinentes sur les expériences à l’échelle nationale, y compris des exemples « d’erreurs à éviter ».
Merci de votre contribution à l’activité de la FAO en matière de foresterie dans le cadre de cette consultation. Nous attendons avec intérêt cette consultation féconde et enrichissante.
Eduardo Mansur, Directeur
Division de l’évaluation, de la gestion et de la conservation des forêts
Département des forêts de la FAO
- Afficher 24 contributions
Thank you for the opportunity to review the First DRAFT SECTION III, FAO Voluntary Guidelines on National Forest Monitoring. This is an excellent and very useful document – A job well–done!
Attached are some observations that may be of interest.
Thank you for making this consultation publicly available. It shows a great deal of transparency and willingness to receive feedback from a wide audience.
My comments and suggestions are mostly related to COFO's mandate in relation to REDD+ and nationally determine goals and strategies under the UNFCCC, especially on measuring and reporting emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
Overall, the document is very easy to read, well-written and concise. It is encouraging to see a specific section on the integration of young experts and I would suggest this is kept in the final version. Along this line, I would suggest that the NFMS shall: “Consider an inter-generational strategy to ensure the long-term sustainability of capacities” (Section 3.5., p 13). This strategy should include students, as mentioned in the text, but also young professionals hired at different government levels.
In terms of the operation of the NFMS, I agree with the need to have a QA/QC plan, which in turn needs to be more clearly linked to the national GHG inventory’s QA/QC plan, especially in relation to the AFOLU sector.
At the same time, I was concerned to see the absence of a specific section on the financial sustainability of the NFMS. This could potentially be addressed in Section 2.1. Institutionalization. Especially in developing countries, current efforts to build a NFMS largely rely on international donations/grants. Ideally an institutionalized system would have its own permanent funding, assigned by the government, particularly considering new INDCs under UNFCCC. I would suggest that a section is included (or Section 2.1. is expanded) to address this issue.
Though, as set out in the introductory sections of the document, the NFMS shall seek to providing useful information for a number of initiatives, conventions and commitments, I believe it is very important to make a clear connection to MRV requirements under the UNFCCC and considering IPCC guidelines, as appropriate. Especially for the AFOLU sector, I did not see a link of measurement and reporting processes with the agriculture sector or even within the forestry sector for harmonizing the estimation of emissions by sources and removals by sinks. There is also a lack of guidance on how to link national reports such as FRA, BUR, National Communications and the GHG inventory. In my experience, such guidance is key and many countries have important obstacles to do this. I would suggest adding a new section on MRV under the UNFCCC after Section 4.4. If appropriate, similar sections may be added for FRA and other relevant UNFCCC conventions.
Finally, I have shared my thoughts with other colleagues and international consultants and we have agreed that some of the guidance provided in this document is too broad to help any specific country situation and that efforts should be undertaken to aid countries in implementing the guidelines defined here.
Thanks again for fostering dialogues and promoting transparency,
All the best,
Javier
Comments on the Draft on NFSMs
I shall begin with the obvious, viz., why do we need a forest monitoring system, which obviously requires a considerable amount of human and other resources to establish and maintain?
It would be reasonable to suggest that such a system is essential to nurture and sustain our forest resources, because it would enable us to ascertain to what extent we may utilise them without impairing their sustainability and to undertake appropriate actions whenever their sustainability is under threat.
Indeed, this is the sole context within which NFSM acquires its justification. Forest monitoring then, ought to be embeded not only in the institutional bundle the current draft outlines, but in a more holistic one that includes all institutions involved in national life.
This may seem a trivial point, but I think, unless we have an uncontroversial reason to ensure the continued existence of forests, and their monitoring as a necessary condition for it, one might easily loose one’s sense of proportion among technical details.
Nobody will dispute that we all are beneficiaries of forests in that they are vital components of Oxygen and Carbon dioxide cycles, enhance the water table, absorb excess of solar heat and improve the local climate, etc.
Now, the ability of the forest to give us those benefits, depends on the equilibrium between the living things in it and its mineral resources required for their continued existence. The latter includes soil nutrients and water.
The quantity of utilisable soil nutrients and water in a given forest area is finite. So, the sustainability of a forest depends on a continued cycle of death and biological degradation of its inhabitants, which would replenish its pool of soil nutrients. Here, death may be due to age, disease or predation.
This process of replenishment, depends on the equilibrium among the species living in a forest. This biological equilibrium has a qualitative and a quantatative component. Biodiversity represents this qualitative component, while population of the individual species reflects its quantitative aspect.
Thus, the sustainability of a forest depends on the adequacy of its soil nutrients and water supply for the living there. The adequacy of the former, depends on the equilibrium among them, i. E. Natural biodiversity, which is instrumental in dynamically keeping the populations of individual species at sustainable levels.
If the foregoing is reasonable, then forest monitoring as an adjunct to its sustainability, ought to extend its range and scope to include rivers, streams, lakes, etc., in a forest as well as its smaller plants, and at least some of its fauna. I know this is a tall order, but it can be very significant under some circumstances.
For instance, during drought in some parts of Africa, elephants resort to barking trees as their access to grass becomes limited. This leads to the destruction of many trees. Likewise, unlimited hunting of the carnivores in savanas results in over grazing by the buffalos, which has serious land and climatic implications. Perhaps, some mechanism may be developed so that forest monitoring could cooperate with Wild Life Services of a country to render its data as complete as possible.
After this somewhat critical start, I am delighted to see the two key aspects of an NFSM, foundation elements and their institutionalisation are very well put indeed. As for the exchange of students, researchers, etc., is an excellent idea in principle, but it would be useful only if areas of their work and the systems they represent are more or less commensurable.
Even within a given region, this commensurability may not always obtain. As it has been pointed out in the current draft, it is important to begin the work and continue to improve it as one goes along. But, such improvements have to be made gradually owing to the uneven distribution of human and other resources required for the purpose. So, exchanges between the most advanced countries in forest monitoring and new comers to the field could only lead to unrealistic expectations and abandoned projects.
The draft suggests, “linkages with other national, regional and global institutes partner…””, and there again, their relevance to the overall purpose of an NFSM is paramount to avoid inappropriate practices. I have already mentioned national wild life service as an important contributor to this endeavour.
The current draft states, ”here are other “sectors” like agriculture, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, ecotourism development or other forest-related fields that are
interested in the results from national forest monitoring.” Unfortunately, this approach represents a case of putting the cart before the horse in a reductive fashion.
Taken individually, those secotors can hardly undertake steps to ensure the sustainability of forests using NFSM data, and if no forests exist, all of them would be adversely affected. So, it is important to incorporate an NFSM into a national conservation agency with linkages to social practices with environmental implications.
Finally, I think it would be prudent to give permanant employment to trainees in forest monitoring as a means of ensuring a continued supply of competent, and one hopes, dedicated people. In my view, it would be very useful if international resources can be made available to pay them if a country finds it difficult to do so owing to valid pragmatic reasons.
Best wishes!
Lal Manavado.
Dr. Bhubaneswor Dhakal
I have the following comments on draft report of FAO voluntary guidelines on national monitoring that you call comments on FSN Forum
- A substantial level of forest inventory work is required for preparing country report for Global Forest Resources Assessmnet Report. FAO prepares the report. The draft report of FAO voluntary guidelines on national monitoring has not stated the difference in information between the reports. I believe most of the information will be same. I request moderator to clarify the differences and provide supplementary information in this discussion. Does FAO hold hidden interest to separate the project activities?
- I read the draft report. I felt that many suggestions are general and presented in vague language. This level of information are already available to the monitoring bodies of most countries. If you present in this form the guidelines they make little contribution in institutional capacity building. Your effort and money used in preparing this guidelines will be wasted.
- Based on the reading of the draft guideline document has focused on wood, carbon and total biomass. If status information of all kinds of forest products (e.g. firewood and fodder) and successions are specified in the inventory report they will be much useful to make forest management decision at both local and national levels. The information, for example, helps to make decisions on improving forest management for biodiversity conservation. They would also help to understand stocks and dynamics of various products available to support livelihoods of local people. If the FAO had genuine interest to collect the useful product specific information the national monitory guidelines had clear instruction. But the draft guideline document has provided detail instructions for little important things but not given attention on the useful things.
- Need of indigenous people is a complicated and sensitive subject and ordinary people cannot adequately deal with them. Forest resources are means of food, nutrition, medicines, antibiotics and cultural existance of the people. Speacilised inputs are vital to explain the relationship between various forest products and existence of indigenous people. Forestry inventory workers cannot deal with the complex and sensetive issue. Based on my experience on forestry development work in Nepal, they manipulate the leaders of indigenous people by various means and make interpretation of the value of the resources in own value and interest. The work of foresters are rather exacerbated by declining of indigenous popluation with extinction threat. It can be said that the forest development policy is doing genocide of indigenous people. Therefore, there should be very clear guidelines to address the needs of the people.
- The word “manpower” is discriminatory from gender perspective. I would use the term “humanpower” instead.
Thanks for providing the opportunity of commenting on your work.
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.