1 / 16

MCPFE SoEF 2007 Review

MCPFE SoEF 2007 Review. Preliminary results from the UNECE/FAO ToS Review E. Rametsteiner. General approach. All 7 respondents: „appropriate“ No comments. General organization of work. 4 respondents: „sufficient and effective“ 3 „partly“ Comments:

yagil
Download Presentation

MCPFE SoEF 2007 Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MCPFE SoEF 2007Review Preliminary results from the UNECE/FAO ToS Review E. Rametsteiner

  2. General approach All 7 respondents: „appropriate“ No comments

  3. General organization of work 4 respondents: „sufficient and effective“ 3 „partly“ Comments: • socio-economic data situation – recognized in planning? • esp. data collection on 6.4 – well advised? • FAO-GFRA & MCPFE: re-use same data in some cases? • IDPs contacted too late? • More active participation of national experts to make definitions more operative

  4. Overall time schedule 4 respondents „appropriate & realistic“ 2 „partly“ 1 „not“ Comments: • Problem: deadline in summer (better: Oct-April) • IDPs contacted too late • Adequate time for main enquiry, but not for private forest ownership enquiry

  5. Data collection/validation from NCs(incl. structure of questionnaire, support) 5 respondents „well organized & carried out“ 2 „partly“ Comments: • More user-friendly „sources“ & „comments“ boxes • Data quality specifications partly inappropriate • Very time consuming data filling • Some detailed comments on data issues in tables

  6. Data validation from International Data Providers 4 respondents „well organized & carried out“ 2 „partly“ 1 „not“ Comments: • Unclear quality data => prelim. expert validation/screening/ scoping before national validation (employment, accidents,.) • IDP contacted too late • IDP have good common methodological basis • Data validation is time consuming, often small differences

  7. Data collection/validation qualitative indicators 2 respondents „well organized & carried out“ 3 „partly“ Comments: • Too detailed questionnaire, many different experts to ask => some inadequate responses • „was not involved“ • Generally ok, some repetitive, some difficult to use • Improve – types of data (to ask for)

  8. Opportunities for participation in report elaboration 5 respondents „responds to needs& expectation“ 2 „partly“ Comments • Ability to comment analysis results to avoid misinterpretations • Opportunity to comment on national level IDP data • „did not see draft report“

  9. Future improvements for SoEF reporting process Comments: • FAO-GFRA & MCPFE coordination: Timing & contents (reduce reporting burden) • Option to review draft report • Better info on national experts involved, Ministry pressure • IDP contact earlier • Better accuracy (specification) of data asked (BD) • Complement questionnaire with SWOT analysis on status & development of indicator in country • Good communication & early information important! • Do not include indicator parts if data availability is low

  10. MCPFE SoEF 2007 Report 6 respondents „met needs& expectations“ 1 „partly“ Comments: • Clearer statements on forest mgmt & policy „hot spots“

  11. MCPFE Report structureincl. country groupings 6 respondents „appropriate“ 1 „partly“ Comments: • Executive summary – do not duplicate from chapters • High quality report, but sometimes „less is more“ • All of Russia in „Eastern Europe“; • European part of Russia only?

  12. MCPFE Report chapters

  13. MCPFE Report chapters Comments: Many detailed comments to be taken up, e.g. • Include references to indicator numbers throughout • Style too positive? too passive? No suggestions offered? • Data quality: no use was made of country information • Etc.

  14. MCPFE Report graphics 6 respondents „appropriate“ 1 „partly“ Comments: - Consistent green-orange-red for wanted-neutral-unwanted

  15. MCPFE Report dissemination 2 respondents „well designed & appropriate“ 3 „partly“ Comments: • More promotion in countries • Printed report to NC asap! • Pdf version too large for download & forwarding • Are country reports available? • Are data easily available on the web?

  16. Future improvements for MCPFE Report Comments: • Include forest types • Assess & judge: existing & „wanted“, propose measures • Improve definitions and ask historical data on basis of new definitions

More Related