1DWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQG
ELRHFRQRP\
VWXGLHV 
5HSRUWRIWKH([SHUW&RQVXOWDWLRQRQ
*OREDO)RUHVW5HVRXUFHV$VVHVVPHQW
7RZDUGV)5$
-RHQVXX)LQODQG±-XQH
'DYLG+HQGHUVRQ+RZDW0DUNXV/LHU.DUL7.RUKRQHQ
$QVVL3HNNDULQHQ0RQLFD*DU]XJOLDDQGgUMDQ-RQVVRQHGV
 Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Report of the Expert Consultation 
on Global Forest Resources  
Assessment: Towards FRA 2020 
 
Joensuu, Finland, 12–16 June 2017 
 
David Henderson Howat, Markus Lier, Kari T. Korhonen, Anssi Pekkarinen Monica Garzuglia and 
Örjan Jonsson (eds.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki 2017 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ISBN: 978-952-326-486-1 (Online) 
ISSN 2342-7639 (Online)  
URN: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-326-486-1 
Copyright: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or 
policies of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 
Authors: David Henderson Howat, Markus Lier, Kari T. Korhonen, Anssi Pekkarinen Monica Garzuglia and Örjan 
Jonsson (eds.) 
Publisher: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki 2017  
Year of publication: 2017 
Photos: Luke/Erkki Oksanen  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
3 
Contents 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 
I. Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 
II. Background and organisation ............................................................................................. 6
III. Key findings and recommendations .................................................................................... 7
IV. Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 11
Annex 1 Agenda ................................................................................................................. 12 
Annex 2 List of background documents .............................................................................. 15 
Annex 3 List of participants ................................................................................................ 16 
Annex 4 Daily summary reports .......................................................................................... 22 
Annex 5 List of FRA 2020 Tables .......................................................................................... 40 
Annex 6 Pictures from the Expert Consultation ................................................................... 41 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 4 
Introduction 
This report presents the key findings and recommendations of the Expert Consultation on Global 
Forest Resources Assessment: Towards FRA 2020 organised on 11.-16.6.2017 in Joensuu, Finland.  
 
A total of 67 specialists participated in this Expert Consultation; these specialists came from 28 coun-
tries and the following international and regional organizations, in addition to FAO and the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): the secretariats of the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 
United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF);  the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO); the 
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); the World Resources Insti-
tute; FOREST EUROPE (the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe); European 
Forest Institute (EFI); International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the European 
Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). 
 
The objective of the Expert Consultation was to provide guidance on the scope and reporting frame-
work for the next Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2020), by identifying key information 
needs related to forests at both the national and international level and by making recommendations 
about the content and process for FRA, in order to help ensure consistent and accurate reporting 
while reducing the reporting burden on countries.   
 
The event was financed by the European Commission, FAO, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs 
and the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and organized in collaboration with the Natural 
Resources Institute Finland (Luke).  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 5 
I. Objective  
1. The objective of the Expert Consultation was to provide guidance on the scope and reporting 
framework for the next Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2020), by identifying key infor-
mation needs related to forests at both the national and international level and by making recom-
mendations about the content and process for FRA, in order to help ensure consistent and accurate 
reporting while reducing the reporting burden on countries.   
 
2. To help achieve this objective, experts were given presentations on progress to date in developing 
FRA 2020 (see draft agenda at Annex 1) and background papers (see Annex 2). These presentations 
and background papers formed the basis for in-depth consideration, by Working Groups and at sub-
sequent plenary reporting sessions, of the following topics:  
 FRA 2020 reporting content  
 FRA 2020 on-line platform 
 Remote sensing 
 Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators (GCS) 
 Capacity development  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 6 
II. Background and organisation 
3. The Global Forest Resources Assessment programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization of 
the United Nations (FAO) is a continuously evolving process which seeks to meet changing infor-
mation needs and produce relevant information for forest related decision making by using the latest 
available data, methods and technologies. FRA has received technical guidance and support from 
international specialists through expert consultations at regular intervals over the last 30 years. The 
first FRA Expert Consultation was held in 1987 and the subsequent consultations took place in 1993, 
1996, 2002, 2006 and 2012.  
 
4. This Expert Consultation, the 7th, was held in Joensuu, Finland, from 12–16 June 2017. Its agenda 
reflected recent significant advances in the international forest policy arena, such as the Paris 
Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the United Nations Strategic Plan for 
Forests 2017-2030 (UNSPF), all of which have set new demands for the FRA process, both in terms of 
scope and reporting periods.   
 
5.  A total of 67 specialists participated in this Expert Consultation; these specialists came from 28 
countries and the following international and regional organizations, in addition to FAO and the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): the secretariats of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF);  the International Tropical Timber Organization 
(ITTO); the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); the World Re-
sources Institute; FOREST EUROPE (the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Eu-
rope); European Forest Institute (EFI); International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and 
the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). A full list of participants is contained in Annex 
3. 
 
6. The event was financed by the European Commission, FAO, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs 
and the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and was organized in collaboration with the 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). 
 
7. Mr Greg Reams (USA) was elected chair of the meeting. The drafting committee comprised the 
Chair, Mr Frederic Achard (JRC), Mr Joberto Veloso de Freitas (Brazil) and the FAO FRA secretariat.  
 
8. Daily summary reports of plenary sessions, including reports from the Working Groups, are con-
tained in Annex 4. 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 7 
III. Key findings and recommendations   
9. The key findings and recommendations from the Expert Consultation are as follows: 
 
A.  Overall scope and framework for FRA 2020 
 General support for overall scope and framework for FRA 2020, as set out in presentations 
and Background Papers. 
 
 B. Reporting variables  
 In general, the proposed FRA Tables (see list in Annex 5) were well received, subject to the 
refinements and requests for Explanatory Notes set out below: 
 
General 
 Flag data that are extrapolated or calculated 
 
Table 1a  
 Change “temporarily unstocked” to “temporarily unstocked and/or recently regenerated or 
planted” 
 Add “permanently unstocked” area 
 In Explanatory Notes explain that: 
o “Forest” should include land that meets the definition of forest even where it is not with-
in a legally defined forest area  
o there can be flexibility in the height threshold for other land “of which” categories such 
as orchards 
 
Table 1b  
• In Explanatory Notes explain the differences between: 
o FRA and UNFCCC definitions of “Deforestation” (the FRA definition includes all areas of 
permanent forest area loss whereas the UNFCCC definition includes only areas of direct 
human-induced permanent forest land area loss) 
o FRA and UNFCCC reporting regarding afforestation/reforestation  
 
Table 2a  
• Change the term “naturally regenerated forest” to “naturally regenerating forest" 
• Improve forest characteristics decision tree to show “of which” categories more clearly   
• In Explanatory Notes: 
o Further clarify what is considered as “primary forest” in the context of FRA reporting 
(explaining, for example, that primary forests may be forests of any seral stage, including 
early seral stage forests that are recovering from natural disturbance that meet the def-
inition of primary forest) 
o Explain that failed plantations should be reported as “temporarily unstocked”  
 
Table 2b  
• Change “bamboo” to “bamboos” 
• Drop “rubber plantations” as a specific forest category 
• In the Explanatory Notes include criteria for bamboos (i.e. dominant growing stock) 
 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 8 
Table 3a  
• Use FRA 2015 definition (minimum diameter of 10 cm) – the focus for this Table is produc-
tion 
• Allow reporting only on the total when no information is available for different forest types   
• In Explanatory Notes provide further guidance and examples to illustrate options for report-
ing on forest growing stock - using either m3/ha (with total m3 automatically calculated), or 
total m3 (with m3/ha automatically calculated) 
 
Table 3b  
• Allow countries to reduce the number of introduced species to three; and allow for up to 
ten native species 
  
Table 3c  
• Do not drop the reporting of biomass on other wooded land, or in dead wood   
 
Table 3d  
• Drop proposed break-down between carbon in mineral and in organic soils 
• Do not drop reporting of carbon on other wooded land 
 
Table 4  
• In Explanatory Notes clarify definition regarding reporting year and make it clear that the Ta-
ble refers to removals  
 
Table 5a 
• Drop “primary” from heading  
• Consider adding “of which primarily for” for “Production”, “Protection of soil and water”, 
“Conservation of biodiversity” and “Social Services”; and using the sum of these figures plus 
“Multiple use”, “other” and “no/unknown” to calculate “Total forest area” – as illustrated in 
paragraph 15 of Annex 4 
 
• In the Explanatory Notes: 
o Explain that Protection forests may also serve such functions as protection of infrastruc-
ture against avalanche 
o Avoid confusion between such terms as “designated function”, “management objective” 
and “use” 
o Clarify the appropriate level for “management objective” (e.g. management unit)   
 
Table 5b  
• In Explanatory Notes, explain that (e.g.) a five-year plan that is continuously updated may be 
acceptable as a long-term management plan      
 
Table 6a  
• In Explanatory Note definitions change “private religious and educational” to “religious and 
private educational” 
 
 Table 6b  
• Change “Communities” to “local, tribal and indigenous communities” 
    
Table 7a  
• FRA secretariat to consider possible improvements to Table proposed by experts, who were 
invited to submit suggestions by 31 August 2017  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 9 
 
Table 7b  
• Where countries are provided with remote sensing (RS) based products and information, 
give details on sources and methodology; and allow validation at country level 
 
Table 7c  
• Invite countries to report national definitions of degraded forest 
 
Table 8  
• Display external data on employment in ‘wood manufacturing’,  ‘paper manufacturing’ and 
the wood products industries on the on-line platform and report the total employment along 
with ‘forestry and logging’ in the FRA  
 
Table 9 
 Request annual information on the number of graduates 
 In Explanatory Notes: 
o Clarify what is meant by “forest-related” education  
  
Table 10a 
 Invite countries to include:  
o References and weblinks to relevant policies, legislation and platforms 
o Further information on traceability systems and % of wood products covered      
 
Table 10b 
 Invite countries to provide remarks on their definition of PFE 
 
External data 
 Invite FSC and PEFC to collaborate on how to avoid double counting. 
 
 
C. FRA 2020 country reporting platform/on-line platform   
 
 The work undertaken to date on the FRA on-line platform is greatly appreciated 
  
 Countries are encouraged to contact the FRA secretariat if they wish to pilot the platform 
and participate in its development 
 
 Develop and update FAQs. 
 
D. Remote sensing   
 
 Support to countries is fundamental, and the tools demonstrated during the meeting were 
well received 
 
 FAO should continue to produce statistics at global, regional and biome levels and refrain 
from publishing statistics at country level based on independent RS analysis. What FAO pub-
lishes is seen by the general public as official / endorsed information. However, FAO can facil-
itate the provision of supporting information in the country reporting process. 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 10 
 Sampling-based RS survey is a key activity that should continue. A sampling-based compo-
nent is required for generating statistics. Experts stressed the importance of validation and 
interaction with countries. 
 
 Regarding global forest mapping, the minimum ambition is to develop a visual product. Be-
yond that, the aim should be to integrate forest land use and human interaction. FRA should 
use RS to look further into issues like primary forest, different drivers of deforestation (such 
as agricultural expansion, mining and urban development), forest degradation, disturbances 
etc.  A process is needed to discuss detail and piloting. 
 
 The Global Ecological Zones map should be updated to support the IPCC Good Practice Guid-
ance refinement  
 
 The RS survey should also make use of freely available very high-resolution images to im-
prove land use assessments and identify land use changes.   
 
E. Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators (GCS) 
 
 As requested, experts discussed proposals for a GCS.  The report of these discussions, as con-
tained in Annex 4, should be transmitted to the CPF Task Force.    
 
 
F. Strengthening of FRA 2020: Capacity development for FRA reporting   
 
 The proposals for a global workshop, regional and sub-regional workshops, capacity building 
on use of RS for FRA reporting, and the strengthening of national networks were well re-
ceived.  
 
 Have regional focal points in the FRA secretariat 
 
 Invite countries who can demonstrate good practice in the coordination of their reporting to 
FRA (e.g. coordination with the SDGs, Rio Convention secretariats and other forest-related 
reporting processes) to present this experience at the global workshop 
 
 Encourage coordination with those engaged in SDG reporting at different levels    
 
 Maintain the FAQ document and include new questions when they arise.    
 
  
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 11 
IV. Annexes 
10. This Report contains the following Annexes: 
  
ANNEX 1.  AGENDA   
ANNEX 2.  LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS  
ANNEX 3. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS    
ANNEX 4.  DAILY SUMMARY REPORTS  
ANNEX 5  LIST OF FRA 2020 TABLES 
ANNEX 6  PICTURES FROM THE EXPERT CONSULTATION 
  
 
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 12 
Annex 1 Agenda 
 
 
MONDAY 12 JUNE 2017 
 
Plenary room 
09:30 
1. Opening session 
o Welcoming remarks (Ms Johanna Laiho-Kauranne,Director of Statistics 
Luke)  
o Opening speech (Mr Doug Muchoney Chief Policy and Resources Divi-
sion FAO) 
Plenary room  
10:00 
2. First plenary session: organization of work 
o Election of chair and drafting committee (Mr Anssi Pekkarinen FAO) 
o Review of the objectives of the meeting and adoption of the agenda  
(Chairperson) 
3. FRA 2020: setting the scene 
o Overall scope and framework (Mr Anssi Pekkarinen FAO) 
o FRA and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Mr Lars Marklund 
FAO) 
o FRA 2020 reporting content (Mr Örjan Jonsson FAO) 
Questions and answers 
10:30-10:45 Coffee break 
Plenary room  
10:45 
o Logistics (Luke) 
Working groups: introduction (Ms Monica Garzuglia FAO) 
Meeting rooms 
11:00 
4. Working groups- rotating working groups on:  
Topic 1: Forest extent, characteristics and changes  
Topic 2: Growing stock, biomass, carbon and NWFPs 
Topic 3: Primary management objective and ownership 
Topic 4: Forest disturbances, socioeconomic variables and external data 
12:10-12:20 Group photo 
12:20-13:25 Lunch-Media interviews 
13:25 4. Working groups continuation 
15:45-16:00 Coffee break 
16:00 4. Working groups continuation 
17:00 Meeting adjourned 
19:00 Reception offered by FAO (Villa Vainoniemi) 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 13 
 
TUESDAY 13 JUNE 2017 
 
Plenary room  
09:00 
5.Presentation of group reports and discussions 
Questions and answers 
10:45-11:00 Coffee break 
Plenary room  
11:00 
6. FRA 2020 specific components 
o FRA country reporting platform (Mr Örjan Jonsson FAO- Mr Toni Stran-
dell                                                                                                                                                                          
Reaktor Innovations ltd) 
UNFCCC automatic data extraction (Mr Aleksi Lehtonen Luke) 
o Remote sensing (Mr Lars Marklund FAO) 
7. FRA and linkages with sustainability indicators 
o Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators (Mr Kit Prins) 
Questions and answers 
Plenary room  
11:35 
Working groups: introduction (Ms Monica Garzuglia FAO) 
Meeting rooms 
11:45 
8. Working groups-rotating working groups on: 
Topic 1: Remote sensing 
Topic 2: FRA on-line platform  
Topic 3: Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators 
12:45-13:45 Lunch break 
Meeting rooms 
13:45 
8. Working groups continuation 
15:15-15:30 Coffee break 
Meeting rooms 
15:45 
8. Working groups continuation 
17:00 Meeting adjourned 
17:15-18:45 Visit to the Metla-House and refreshment 
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 14 
 
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2017 
 
Plenary room  
09:00 
9.Presentation of group reports and discussions 
Questions and answers 
11:00-11:15 Coffee break 
Plenary room  
11:15 
10. Strengthening of FRA 2020 
o Capacity development (Ms Leticia Piña FAO) 
Questions and answers 
Plenary room  
11:35 
Working groups: introduction (Ms Monica Garzuglia FAO) 
Meeting rooms 
11:45 
11. Working groups-rotating working groups on: 
Topic 1: FRA on-line platform 
Topic 2: Capacity development 
Parallel remote sensing discussion 
12:45-13:45 Lunch 
Meeting rooms 
13:45 
11. Working groups continuation 
       Parallel remote sensing discussion continuation  
Plenary room  
14:50 
12. Presentation of group reports and discussions 
15:30-15:45 Coffee break 
Plenary room  
15:45 
12. Presentation of group reports and discussions continues 
Questions and answers 
16:45 Field trip introduction and logistics  (Luke) 
17:00 Meeting adjourned 
19:30-21:00 Dinner offered by the City of Joensuu, Town Hall 
 
THURSDAY 15 JUNE 2017 
 
FIELD TRIP (8:00-17:00) 
 
FRIDAY 16 JUNE 2017 
 
Plenary room 
09:00 
13. Wrap up of discussions/ adoption of the report (Chairperson) 
10:30-10:45 Coffee break 
Plenary room  
10:45 
14. FRA 2020 Next steps 
o Timeline for FRA 2020  (Mr Anssi Pekkarinen FAO) 
Plenary room  
12:00 
 
15. Closing session 
o Any other business (Chairperson) 
o Closing remarks (Mr Anssi Pekkarinen FAO, Mr Kari Korhonen Luke) 
12:30 Lunch and Departure of participants 
 
 
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 15 
Annex 2 List of background documents 
 
The following background documents were prepared as input to the Expert Consultation: 
 
For consideration on Monday 12 June 
• FRA 2020 Draft Specification 
• FRA 2020 Terms and Definitions 
• FRA 2020 What has changed and why? 
• FRA 2020 Reporting content: Questions to be discussed at the Expert Consultation 
 
For consideration on Tuesday 13 June 
• New FRA Platform for reporting, review and analysis 
• FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Component 
• Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators Background paper 
 
For consideration on Wednesday 14 June 
• Capacity Development Plan to support the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2020) 
reporting process 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 
 16 
Annex 3 List of 
participants  
 
Mr Frédéric Achard 
Natural Capital Forest Project Leader, Bio-
Economy Unit, Directorate D – Sustainable 
Resources 
Joint Research Centre, European Commission 
Via E. Fermi 2749 – TP 261; I-21027, Ispra, 
ITALY 
E-mail: rederic.achard@ec.europa.eu  
 
Mr Carlos Bahamondez 
Gerente Regional 
Instituto Forestal (INFOR) 
Casilla 385, Valdivia, CHILE 
E-mail: cbahamon@infor.cl  
 
Mr Blaise Bodin 
Consultant 
U N E P, Secretariat - Convention on Biological 
Diversity (S C B D) 
413, St. Jacques St W Suite 800 Montreal, QC.  
H2Y 1N9, CANADA 
E-mail: blaise.bodin.consultant@cbd.int 
 
Mr Simon Bridge 
Section Head 
Planning, Operations and Information Branch 
Ottawa, K1A 0E4, CANADA 
E-mail: simon.bridge@canada.ca    
 
Mr Sairusi Bulai  
Team Leader/ Coordinator Forestry & Agricul-
ture Diversification 
SPC Nabua, FIJI 
E-mail: SairusiB@spc.int  
 
Ms Ana Laura Cerqueira Trindade 
Environment analyst  
Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (SFB), Government 
of the Federative Republic of Brazil 
SCEN Trecho 2 Lote 4 Bloco H, 70818-900 Bra-
silia, BRAZIL 
E-mail: ana.trindade@florestal.gov.br    
 
 
 
 
Mr Upton Edwards 
Senior Surveyor 
Forest Resource Information Management, 
Forestry Department 
173 Constant Spring Road, Kingston 8, JAMAICA 
E-mail: uedwards@forestry.gov.jm   
 
Mr Andrei N. Filipchuk 
Deputy Director of Federal Budget Institution 
All-Russian Research Institute for Silviculture 
and Mechanization of Forestry 
15, Institutskaya Street, Pushkino, Moscow 
region 141200, RUSSIA 
E-mail: afilipchuk@yandex.ru 
 
Mr Jonas Fridman 
Head of the Swedish National Forest Inventory 
Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Swedish Univer-
sity of Agricultural Sciences, Department of 
Forest Resource Management 
SE-90183, Umeå, SWEDEN 
E-mail: Jonas.Fridman@slu.se   
 
Mr Matthew Hansen 
Co-Director 
Geographic Information Science Center of 
Excellence (GIScCE) 
1021 Medary Ave, Wecota Hall, Box 506B, 
Brookings, SD 57007, UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 
E-mail: mhansen@umd.edu   
 
Mr Martin Herold 
Professor of Geoinformation Science and Re-
mote Sensing  
University of Wageningen 
PO Box 47, 6700AA Wageningen, NETHER-
LANDS 
E-mail: martin.herold@wur.nl   
 
 
Ms Claire Howell 
Principal Scientist, Manager National Forest 
Inventory-Fisheries, Forestry and Quantitative 
Sciences Branch 
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Re-
sources Economics and Sciences 
Australian Government Department of Agri-
culture and Water Resources 
M.05.173, 18 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra 
ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA 
E-mail: claire.howell@agriculture.gov.au  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 17 
Mr Steve Johnson 
Communications Manager  
International Tropical Timber Organization 
(ITTO) Secretariat 
Pacifico-Yokohama, JAPAN 
E-mail: Johnson@itto.int 
 
Mr Tomasz Juszczac 
Forest Affairs Officer 
United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs  
DC1-1245, One UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
E-mail: juszczakt@un.org   
 
Mr Pem Narayan Kandel 
Joint Secretary 
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation 
Kathmandu, NEPAL 
E-mail: pkkandelnepal@gmail.com   
 
Ms Valerie Kapos 
Head of Programme, Climate Change and Bio-
diversity 
United Nations Environment Programme 
(UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Cen-
tre 
219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, 
UNITED KINGDOM 
E-mail: val.kapos@unep-wcmc.org 
 
Mr Michael Köhl 
University of Hamburg 
Center for Wood Sciences, World Forestry 
Leuschnerstrasse 91, 21031 Hamburg, GER-
MANY 
E-mail: michael.koehl@uni-hamburg.de   
 
Mr Andre Kondjo Shoko 
Chef de Division Inventaire Forestier 
Direction Inventaire et Aménagement Fores-
tiers (DIAF)/MECNT 
4th floor, Building FORESCOM, Kinsha-
sa/Gombe, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE 
CONGO 
E-mail: kondjosh@yahoo.fr   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms Anu Korosuo 
Research Scholar 
Ecosystems Services and Management Pro-
gram (ESM) 
International Institute for Applied Systems 
Analysis (IIASA) 
Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AUSTRIA 
E-mail: korosuo@iiasa.ac.at 
 
Mr Andrius Kuliešis 
State Forest Service 
Forest Inventory and management, forest use 
and forestry statistics 
Pramonès ave 11a, LT-51327, Kaunas, LITHU-
ANIA 
E-mail: a.kuliesis@amvmt.lt   
 
Mr Andrei N. Iugov 
Senior Researcher 
All-Russian Research Institute for Silviculture 
and Mechanization of Forestry 
15, Institutskaya Street, Pushkino, Moscow 
region 141200, RUSSIA 
E-mail: 5081517@list.ru 
 
Mr Lars Laestadius  
Consultant 
Laestadius Consulting, LLC 
11407 Symphony Woods Ln Silver Spring, 
Maryland 20901-5031, UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 
E-mail: lars.h.laestadius@gmail.com   
 
Ms Stefanie Linser 
Senior Researcher 
European Forest Institute – Central-East and 
South-East European Regional Office EFICEEC-
EFISEE c/o University of Natural Resources and 
Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU) 
Feistmantelstrasse 4, 1180 Vienna, AUSTRIA 
E-mail: Stefanie.linser@efi.int  
 
Ms Rocio Malleux Hernani 
Directora General 
Dirección General de Información y Ordena-
miento Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre 
Av. 7, N° 229, Urb. Rinconada Baja, La Molina, 
Lima 12, PERU 
E-mail: rmalleux@serfor.gob.pe  
 
 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 18 
Mr Toshimasa Masuyama 
Deputy Director, International Forestry 
Cooperation Office, Forestry Agency 
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 
Japan 
1-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokio, JAPAN 
E-mail: toshimasa_masuyam370@maff.go.jp   
 
Mr Joel Matshate 
Deputy Director 
Forestry Regulation and Oversight, Govern-
ment of South Africa, Department of Agricul-
ture, Forestry and Fisheries   
110 Hamilton Street, 0001 Arcadia, Pretoria, 
SOUTH AFRICA 
E-mail: JoelMa@daff.gov.za   
 
Mr Roman Michalak 
Forest Resources Officer 
Timber Section, United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe (UNECE) 
Palais des Nations, Avenue de la Paix, 8-14, 
CH-1211 Geneva 10, SWITZERLAND 
E-mail: roman.michalak@unece.org   
 
Mr Naledzani Mulaudzi 
Forestry Regulation & Oversight 
Government of South Africa, Department of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 
110 Hamilton Street, 0001 Arcadia, Pretoria, 
SOUTH AFRICA 
E-mail: NaledzaniMU@daff.gov.za   
 
Mr Brian M. Mutasha 
Forestry Officer 
Management and Planning Unit, Forestry De-
partment, Ministry of Lands and Natural Re-
sources 
Kwacha House Annex, 2nd Floor, Cairo Road 
10101, 50042, Lusaka, ZAMBIA 
E-mail:bmmutasha@gmail.com; muta-
sha@zambia.co.zm    
 
Ms Sonja Oswalt 
Forest Research Analyst 
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 
Research & Development 
4700 Old Kingston Pike 37919, Knoxville, TN, 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
E-mail: soswalt@fs.fed.us   
 
 
Mr Christopher Prins  
International Forestry Consultant 
17, Chemin Fillion, CH 1227 Carouge, SWIT-
ZERLAND 
E-mail: kit.prins@gmail.com   
 
Mr Rastislav Raši 
Policy Adviser  
FOREST EUROPE Liaison Unit Bratislava 
T. G. Masaryka 22, 96092 Zvolen, SLOVAKIA 
E-mail: rastislav.rasi@foresteurope.org 
 
Mr Greg Reams 
National Programme Manager 
Forest Inventory and Analysis, National Office 
1601 North Kent Street, Suite 400, Arlington, 
VA 22209, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
E-mail: greams@fs.fed.us   
 
Mr Raul Rodríguez Franco 
Gerente de Sistema National de Monitoreo 
Forestal 
Comisión National Forestal (CONAFOR) 
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO 
E-mail: raul.rodriguez@conafor.gob.mx 
 
Mr Saibal Dasgupta 
Director General 
Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environ-
ment Forests 
Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 248195 Uttarak-
hand, INDIA 
E-mail:dgfsi@fsi.nic.in; saibaldasgup-
ta@hotmail.com   
 
Mr Brad Smith 
Retired Associate National Program Leader 
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 
4702 Topping Road, North Bethesda, MD 
20852, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
E-mail: bsmith12fs@gmail.com   
 
Mr Graham Stinson 
Manager of Canada's National Forest Invento-
ry 
Canadian Forest Service 
506 West Burnside Road, Victoria, BC, V8Z 
1M5, CANADA 
E-mail: graham.stinson@canada.ca   
 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 19 
Mr Fred Stolle 
Forest Senior Associate 
World Resources Institute 
10 G Street NE Suite 800 
Washington, DC 20002, USA 
E-mail: FStolle@wri.org 
 
Mr Ruandha Agung Sugardiman  
Director  
Ministry Of Environment and Forestry, 
Directorate General of Forest Planning and 
Environmental Governance,  
Directorate of Forest Resources Inventory and 
Monitoring 
Manggala Wanabakti Building Block I -7th floor, 
Jalan Janderal Gatot Subroto, Senayan – 
Jakarta 10270 INDONESIA 
E-mail: ra.sugardiman@menlhk.go.id / 
ra.sugardiman@gmail.com  
 
Ms Venera Surappaeva 
State Agency of Environmental 
Protection and Forestry of Kyrgyz Republic 
Forest and Hunting Inventory Department 
Str. L. Tolstoi 3, Bishkek, KYRGIZSTAN  
E-mail: vsurappaeva@mail.ru  
 
Mr Ian Thompson 
Research Scientist  
Canadian Forest Service 
1219 Queen St. east, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario 
P6A 2E5, CANADA 
E-mail: ian.thompson@canada.ca   
 
Mr Stein Michael Tomter 
Senior Scientific Adviser 
Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research 
Oslo, NORWAY 
E-mail: stein.tomter@nibio.no   
 
Ms Ruth Turia 
Director-Forest Policy and Planning 
National Forest Service PNG Forest Authority 
P. O. Box 5055, Boroko, NCD, PAPUA NEW 
GUINEA 
E-mail: rturia@pngfa.gov.pg   
 
Mr Ryosuke Ujihashi 
United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) 
Secretariat Department of Economic and So-
cial Affairs  
DC1-1245, One UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
E-mail: ujihashi@un.org 
 
Mr Joberto Veloso de Freitas 
Executive Manager 
Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (SFB), Government 
of the Federative Republic of Brazil 
SCEN Trecho 2 Lote 4 Bloco H, 70818-900 Bra-
silia, BRAZIL 
E-mail: joberto.freitas@florestal.gov.br ; 
joberto@ufam.edu.br   
 
Mr Zeng Weisheng 
Professor 
Academy of Forest Inventory and Planning, 
State Forestry Administration, Government of 
the People's Republic of China 
18 Hepingli Dongjie, 100714 Beijing, CHINA 
E-mail: zengweisheng@forestry.gov.cn ; 
zengweisheng0928@126.com   
 
Ms Jenny Wong 
Programme Officer 
Adaptation, Technology and Science, United 
Nations Framework Convention, on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC) 
P.O. Box 260124, D-53153 Bonn, GERMANY 
E-mail: jwong@unfccc.int 
 
Ms Jing Yang 
Deputy Division Director 
Forest Resources Management Department, 
State Forestry Administration, P.R. China 
No.18, Hepinglidongjie, Dongcheng District, 
Beijing, 100714, CHINA 
E-mail: yangjing@forestry.gov.cn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 20 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
 
Ms Helena Haakana 
Research Scientist 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, FINLAND 
E-mail: helena.haakana@luke.fi   
 
Ms Annika Kangas 
Professor for forest inventory 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101, Joensuu, FINLAND 
E-mail: annika.kangas@luke.fi  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr Kari T. Korhonen 
Principal Scientist, NFI leader 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101, Joensuu, FINLAND 
E-mail: kari.t.korhonen@luke.fi   
 
Mr Markus Lier 
Research Scientist 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101, Joensuu, FINLAND 
E-mail: markus.lier@luke.fi  
 
Ms Tuula Packalen  
Professor for forest planning 
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
P.O. Box 68, FIN-80101, Joensuu, FINLAND 
E-mail: tuula.packalen@luke.fi
FAO 
 
Ms Monica Garzuglia 
Forestry Officer 
FAO, FRA 
Room C374, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Monica.Garzuglia@fao.org  
 
Mr David Henderson Howat 
International Consultant 
FAO 
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, 
ITALY 
E-mail: hendersonhowat@gmail.com 
 
Mr Örjan Jonsson 
Forestry Officer 
FAO, FRA 
Room C372. Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Orjan.Jonsson@fao.org  
 
Ms Valeria Contessa 
Consultant 
FAO, FRA 
Room C382, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail : Valeria.Contessa@fao.org  
 
 
 
 
Eva Kiraly  
Forestry Junior Technical Officer 
FAO REU (Regional Office for Europe and Cen-
tral Asia) 
34 Benczur utca, H-1068 Budapest, HUNGARY 
E-mail: Eva.Kiraly@fao.org   
 
 
Mr Lars Gunnar Marklund 
Forestry Officer 
FAO, FRA 
Room C382, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Larsgunnar.Marklund@fao.org    
 
Mr Douglas Muchoney 
Chief, FOA 
FAO, Forestry Department 
Room D474, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Douglas.Muchoney@fao.org  
 
Mr Anssi Pekkarinen 
Senior Forestry Officer, Global Forest Re-
sources Assessment (FRA) Team Leader 
FAO, FRA 
Room C378, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Anssi.Pekkarinen@fao.org  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 21 
Ms Leticia Pina 
Forestry Officer 
FAO, FRA 
Room C380, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 
00153 Rome, ITALY 
E-mail: Leticia.Pina@fao.org 
 
Mr Ekrem Yazici 
Forestry Officer 
FAO REU (Regional Office for Europe and Cen-
tral Asia) 
34 Benczur utca, H-1068 Budapest, HUNGARY 
E-mail: Ekrem.Yazici@fao.org 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Observers: International Forestry Students’ Association (IFSA) 
 
Mr Daniel Schraik 
MSc student in Forestry,  
Cross Border University Programme.  
University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Kuo-
pio,  
Savonlinna, FINLAND 
E-mail: daniel.schraik@gmail.com  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms Diana Tung 
MA student in Applied Anthropology  
and Participatory Development. 
Australian National University, Canberra, AUS-
TRALIA 
E-mail: dianatung.au@gmail.com 
 
 
Mr Khalil Walji 
MSc student in Integrated Studies, of Land  
and Food Systems. 
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 
CANADA 
E-mail: walji.ifsa@gmail.com   
 
REAKTOR Innovations ltd Team 
Mannerheimintie 2 
00100 Helsinki, FINLAND 
 
Mr Perttu Auramo  
Senior Architect 
E-mail: auramo@reaktor.fi 
 
Mr Mathias Lindholm 
Lead Visual Designer 
E-mail: mathias.lindholm@reaktor.com 
 
Mr Joni Rajanen  
Lead Developer 
E-mail: joni.rajanen@reaktor.com 
 
Mr Toni Strandell 
Lead Service Designer 
E-mail: toni.strandell@reaktor.com 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 
 
 22 
Annex 4 Daily summary reports  
 
Monday 12 June  
Agenda item 1. Opening session 
1. In her welcoming remarks, Ms Johanna Laiho Kauranne, Director of Statistics, Natural Resources 
Institute, Finland (Luke) gave a brief overview of the forest sector in Finland.  Noting that the first 
systematic forest inventory in Finland had been carried out in 1921-24, she stressed the importance 
to the forest sector of having a sound evidence base for decision making.  She also said that 2017 
marked the centenary of Finland’s independence, adding that forests had played a key role in the 
country’s development and would continue to do so as an important element of the Finnish Bioe-
conomy Strategy. 
 
2. Mr Doug Muchoney, Chief Policy and Resources Division, FAO, then gave an opening speech, wel-
coming experts and thanking the organisers and hosts, including the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Af-
fairs, the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
and the European Commission, as well as the FAO team.  He underlined the increasing importance of 
accurate, consistent and up to date information on forests, especially in the context of the SDGs, the 
Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the United Nations Strategic Plan on Forests (2017-30) (UN-
SPF). Recalling that FAO had conducted its first forest resource assessment in 1946, he highlighted 
the vital role of national correspondents who in many ways “are the FRA”. He also stressed the need 
for continuous improvement in FRA processes, including through increased use of modern technolo-
gies such as remote sensing and efforts to reduce the reporting burden on countries. Accordingly, 
the aim should be to make FRA 2020 “the best FRA ever”. 
 
Agenda item 2. First plenary session: organization of work 
3. Mr Greg Reams (USA) was elected Chair of the meeting.  
 
4. The Chairperson outlined the objectives of the meeting and introduced the draft agenda, which 
was subsequently adopted. He explained that, as with previous FRA Expert Consultations, the objec-
tive was to provide guidance for the next global assessment (FRA 2020), by identifying key infor-
mation needs related to forests at both the national and international level and by making recom-
mendations about the content and process for FRA, to help ensure consistent and accurate report-
ing.  He also noted that the Working Groups would consider these matters in detail and report back 
to plenary sessions; the rotational arrangement would allow each Working Group to discuss every 
topic, with designated topic facilitators and rapporteurs. 
     
Agenda item 3. FRA 2020: setting the scene 
5. Mr Anssi Pekkarinen (FAO) set the scene by describing the overall scope and framework for FRA 
2020.  He reminded experts that the assessment is based on two sources of data, namely (i) country 
reports, which are the primary data source and are prepared by the National Correspondents (NC) 
officially nominated by the countries, and (ii) remote sensing, which is conducted together with na-
tional focal points and international partners, such as the Joint Research Centre of the European 
Commission (JRC).  FRA 2020 should seek to improve transparency; reduce the reporting burden; add 
value, with the data being more widely used and disseminated; improve communication, for example 
between NCs and reviewers; and offer flexibility so that it also meets the needs of other partners.  
The Collaborative Forest Resources Questionnaire (CFRQ) would continue to operate as a partnership 
between FAO Forestry (FRA), the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the International 
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC/OFAC), FOR-
EST EUROPE and the Montréal Process. FAO tools that can support reporting include forthcoming e-
learning courses on SDGs; the Open Foris Initiative that provides free and open source tools for envi-
ronmental monitoring; and the System for Earth Observation Data Access, Processing and Analysis 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 23 
for Land Monitoring (SEPAL). He described on-going progress in development of the FRA 2020 on-line 
platform, which would be refined in the light of the outcome of this Expert Consultation. In addition, 
he noted that FRA 2020 needs to meet information needs of a range of key partners, including the 
Rio Conventions, COMIFAC, FAOSTAT, FOREST EUROPE, ITTO and UNECE, as well as SDG reporting 
and the proposed Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators (GCS).   
 
6. Mr Lars Marklund (FAO) then gave a presentation on FRA and the SDGs, explaining that, while 
forests contribute to many of the SDGs, information provided by countries to the FRA process will 
contribute directly to measuring progress on forest-related indicators under SDG 15 (“protect, re-
store and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat 
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”). As “Custodian 
Agency” for 25 SDG indicators, FAO is responsible for methodological development and documenta-
tion; collecting data from national sources and reporting at global level; contributing to statistical 
capacity development; and coordinating with relevant stakeholders. Three of the SDG indicators for 
which FAO is Custodian Agency are forest-related, namely:  
 Indicator 15.1.1 (forest area as a proportion of total land area): this is a Tier 1 indicator, with 
good data coverage from FRA. Analysis of regional and global aggregates has already been 
reported in the 2016 SDG progress report and country data published on the website of the 
Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG indicators (IAEG-SDG). Improvements in data collec-
tion and possibilities for more frequent, yearly, reporting are under discussion as part of the 
FRA process.  
 
 Indicator 15.2.1 (progress towards SFM): this comprises five sub-indicators, namely forest ar-
ea annual net change rate; above-ground biomass stock in forest; proportion of forest area 
located within legally established protected areas; proportion of forest area under a long-
term forest management plan; and forest area under an independently verified forest man-
agement certification scheme. Data analysis is based on thresholds/traffic lights.  However, 
because of continuing concerns about, for example coverage and data aggregation, it is un-
likely to be upgraded to Tier 1 status before the next SDG revision in 2020.   
   
 Indicator 15.4.2 (mountain green cover index): this is based on remote sensing of changes to 
plots assessed as cropland, grassland or forest land. A first report and storyline were provid-
ed in February 2017 and a process to upgrade to Tier 1 will be conducted through online val-
idation of data.  
The next steps include country capacity building for 15.1.1. and 15.2.1, in coordination with FRA; 
development of online courses; and preparation for a review of SDG 15 indicators that will take place 
in 2018, building on results from FRA and work on the GCS.  
 
7. Mr Örjan Jonsson (FAO) explained that the proposed FRA 2020 reporting content included 60 vari-
ables, compared with 120 in 2015, 90 in 2010 and 45 in 2005. This reduced reporting burden had 
been achieved through detailed analysis examining: how previously collected data had been used; 
the reasons for collecting data; questions to be answered; and data availability from external 
sources. The analysis had been based on surveys of NCs and FRA users; a review of the FRA 2015 
reporting process and scope; an internal evaluation by the FRA team; discussions with FAO Forestry 
Department teams, selected NCs and other experts; and views from the FRA Advisory Group. Follow-
ing this Expert Consultation there would be further discussion with CFRQ partners, FAO Forestry De-
partment Teams and the FAO Chief Statistician. 
 
8. During subsequent discussion, it was noted that there would be an opportunity during Working 
Group sessions for experts to discuss variables that had been proposed for deletion.  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 24 
Agenda item 4. Working groups   
9. The topics discussed by the first round of working groups were: Topic 1: Forest extent, characteris-
tics and changes; Topic 2: Growing stock, biomass, carbon and non-wood forest products (NWFPs); 
Topic 3: Primary management objective and ownership; and Topic 4: Forest disturbances, socioeco-
nomic variables and external data.  Background Documents are listed in Annex 2. 
 
Tuesday 13 June   
Agenda item 5. Presentation of group reports and discussion 
10. The presentation of group reports and subsequent discussion was moderated by the Chairperson. 
 
Topic 1: Forest extent, characteristics and changes. 
 
11. During the Working Group discussion, the following suggestions and points were made: 
Terminology  
• Change “Forest” to “Forest land” 
•  Should it be “Bamboos” instead of “bamboo”? 
• Change “plantation forest” to “plantations” 
• Do not use “compulsory” as that makes everything else “voluntary” 
• Should it be “Naturally regenerating forest” or “Natural forest” instead of “Naturally 
regenerated forest”? 
• The heading of Table 2a is not clear 
• Should it be “other forest with planting” instead of “other planted forest”? 
• Should it be “Primary” or “Undisturbed” forest? 
 
Table 1a Extent of forest, other wooded land and other land 
• Change “temporarily unstocked” to “temporarily unstocked and/or seedlings” or 
“temporarily unstocked and/or recently regenerated” 
• Add “permanently unstocked” area 
• Add “other land - of which other tree cover” to cover forest land outside legally de-
fined forest areas 
• The height threshold should not apply for other land “of which” categories such as 
orchards 
• The height threshold for “temporarily unstocked” should be increased to 5 metres    
• Focus FRA on “forest land” and drop “other land with tree cover” 
• The documentation should explain that the other land “of which” categories are mu-
tually exclusive.  
• The documentation should explain that inland water is NOT included in the total area 
estimates.  
 
Table 1b Annual forest area loss, gain and net change 
• Where can natural tree cover loss be reported? 
• There are differences between FRA and UNFCCC reporting regarding afforesta-
tion/reforestation.  
• There are also differences in the definition of “deforestation”. Under UNFCCC it is 
“direct human induced”; under FRA it is a “permanent reduction of the tree canopy 
cover below the minimum 10 percent threshold”. Introducing “of which human in-
duced” to FRA should help comparison of the figures. The same name remains a 
problem; maybe UNFCCC should use “Human induced deforestation” 
• The documentation should explain that “agroforestry” includes shifting cultivation.  
• The reports should highlight data that is extrapolated, and does not represent actual 
measurements 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 25 
• Deforestation should be separated into different drivers (e.g. agricultural expansion, 
urban development, etc); remote sensing and existing global products can contribute 
to this.  
 
 Table 2a Forest Characteristics 
• Primary forest does not need to be old; this should be made clear in the definition. 
• There were concerns about the consistency of data on Primary forest in FRA 2015.  
• Drop “primary forest” and replace it with a term that can be measurable, consistent 
and relate to ecological value.  
• The term “primary forest” can be confusing if secondary forest is missing. 
 It would be helpful to use measurable characteristics such as years since stand dis-
turbance. 
• Add “unknown” as third category in addition to naturally regenerated and planted. 
• It can be difficult to distinguish between “naturally regenerated” and planted in older 
forests.  
• Should failed plantations be reported as “unknown” or “temporarily unstocked”? 
• The forest characteristics decision tree should be improved to show “of which” cate-
gories more clearly. 
• How should forest degradation be reported? 
 
Table 2b Specific forest categories 
• Drop “rubber plantations”. 
• Include criteria for bamboo (dominant growing stock) in the explanatory notes. 
• Consider adding additional forest types that are found in temperate and arid zones.  
 
12. During the Plenary discussion on Topic 1, experts further commented that:  
 The term “Forest” should be retained in FRA because it is a well-established term.  
 As “Primary forests” are subject to many natural disturbances, it would be inaccurate to refer 
to then as “undisturbed”.   
 The height threshold for “temporarily unstocked” should remain at 1.3 metres as Remote 
Surveys are becoming increasingly sophisticated at picking up small height differences, and if 
the definition is changed now it may need to be changed again for FRA 2025. 
 The “temporarily unstocked” should be changed to “temporary unstocked or seedling stand” 
 FRA should not ignore trees outside forests and should improve the reporting on this varia-
ble.  
 One possibility is to avoid the term “deforestation” by using alternatives such as “gain/loss” 
of forest or “expansion/contraction”. 
 It might also be possible to ask about “expected” forest loss, where for example an area of 
forest has been designated for conversion to another land use.   
 The term “deforestation” should not be changed because it should be consistent with UNFCC 
definition. It is not practical to expect UNFCCC to change its (negotiated) definition of “de-
forestation”. 
 The table on natural disturbances might provide a way of identifying deforestation that is not 
“human induced”. 
 Forest degradation is a difficult topic. It is obviously important, but current reliance on na-
tional definitions by other processes is not entirely appropriate for global assessments such 
as FRA. One possibility is to focus on positive actions being taken by countries to restore de-
graded forests. 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 26 
Topic 2: Growing stock, biomass, carbon and non-wood forest products (NWFPs) 
13. During the Working Group discussion, the following suggestions and points were made: 
Table 3a Growing stock 
 General support for the proposal to offer countries the possibility of reporting on forest 
growing stock either using the m3/ha (with total m3 automatically calculated by the sys-
tem), or in total m3 (with m3/ha calculated by the system). However, it would be helpful 
to provide guidance and examples, and to allow reporting only on the total when no in-
formation is available for different forest types. It should be made clear which are the 
reported figures and which are the calculated figures. 
 The appropriate definition of growing stock depends upon whether the information is 
used for production purposes or calculation of biomass/carbon.  
 Concern about data reliability for trees of diameter between 0 and 10 cm. In some coun-
tries, relevant equations are not available: Many European countries want to keep the 0 
cm threshold to avoid the need for recalculations, but other countries would prefer a 10 
cm or 5 cm threshold as data is rarely available down to 0 cm.  
 The documentation should explain whether or not growing stock data include stumps. 
 Concern that countries do not have “hard data” for annual reporting on growing stock, 
and so will either repeat data from previous years or rely on modelling. On the other 
hand, countries are aware of the need for annual data for SDG reporting, and this may 
encourage them to provide it.  
Table 3b Growing stock composition 
• General support for including introduced species in the growing stock composition table, 
perhaps reducing the number to 3. The number of native species could perhaps be in-
creased to 10. There are differences between boreal countries and tropical countries. 
 
Table 3c Forest biomass stock 
• Concern about dropping the reporting on biomass on other wooded land: FRA is the only 
process that collects information on this land; the information may become more relevant 
in the future; and it has been reported on before, so continuity should not be lost.   
• Concern about dropping the reporting on biomass in deadwood: this is required to esti-
mate carbon; and dead wood can represent a significant proportion of biomass in boreal 
forest. The documentation should make it clear that “above-“ and “below-ground bio-
mass” refer only to living biomass.   
• General support for the proposed automated calculations using IPCC default values:  this 
can help those countries that do not have biomass and carbon estimates. 
 
 Table 3d Forest carbon stock 
 • Concern about breaking down the reporting on carbon in mineral and organic soils: this 
sub-division was felt to be unrealistic; most peatlands are not forest.  
 Concern about dropping carbon stock on other wooded land. 
• Unclear what is meant by “compulsory” reporting on certain identified variables: coun-
tries that do not have data would require help from the FRA team; the system must be 
able to flag estimates in a way that distinguishes them from actual data.  
 
 Table 4 Non-wood forest products 
• This Table is important but data are often lacking or incomplete. General support for in-
cluding quantity and value of NWFPs. The definition should be clarified regarding cultivat-
ed products and reporting year; it should be made clear that the Table refers to removals.  
 
1DWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGELRHFRQRP\VWXGLHV 
 27 
14. During the Plenary discussion on Topic 2, experts further commented that: 
x There would be on-going developments regarding assessment of growing stock, for ex-
ample through the IPCC process. 
x Biomass and carbon stock on other wooded land should not be dropped.   
Topic 3: Primary management objective and ownership 
15. During the Working Group discussion, the following suggestions and points were made: 
Table 5a Primary management objective 
x Concerns and mixed views about this Table.  Some countries can, but many cannot, re-
port both the “multiple use” and disaggregated categories if “primary management ob-
jective” is required.  
x The purpose and expected use of the information collected through this Table should be 
better explained. 
 
An alternative is add “of which primary management objective” for: “Production”, “Protec-
tion of soil and water”, “Conservation of biodiversity” and “Social Services”; and use the sum 
of these figures plus “Multiple use”, “other” and “no/unknown” to calculate “Total forest ar-
ea” – as illustrated below:  
 
 
 
x Protection forests may also serve such purposes as protection of infrastructure against 
avalanche.  
x The documentation should be clarified to avoid confusion between the terms “designa-
tion”, “management objective” and “use”, which have different meanings. 
x If the term “management objective” is used, decide at which level it is set (e.g. national, 
landscape, management unit, site, owner). 
Table 5b Forest area within protected areas and forest area with long-term management plans 
x Also include IUCN category VI in the definition of protected areas. 
x Report IUCN categories separately. 
x Reconsider criteria for long-term management plan: for example, a five-year plan that is 
continuously updated should also be acceptable.    
  
 Table 6a Forest ownership 
x General support for the proposed table, but some would prefer to retain the FRA 2015 
subcategories of public forests. 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 28 
 Provide more guidance on how to differentiate between ownership of, and management 
rights to, trees in publicly owned forests. 
 Under private ownership, separate profit and non-profit business/institutions owners. 
 In the definitions, remove “private” from “private religious”. 
 Include “…of which owned by local, tribal and indigenous communities” under both pub-
lic and private forests. 
16. During the Plenary discussion on Topic 3, experts further commented that: 
 In some countries, there is a strong interest in (e.g.) the area of forest where production 
is a management objective, and this information is lost if it is reported as “multiple use”. 
However, a “multiple use” objective is central to the management of many forests in 
(e.g.) many EU countries.   
 Explicitly include management by indigenous communities in Table 6b. 
 It is not clear why some Tables require reporting to 2015 and others require reporting to 
2020. 
Topic 4: Forest disturbances, socioeconomic variables and external data. 
17.  During the Working Group discussion, the following suggestions and points were 
made: 
Table 7a Disturbances 
 There was general consensus about the relevance of the data and also about the difficul-
ty of collecting data and reporting on it. It is unclear how this information will be brought 
together in global reporting. 
 
 Further consideration should be given to how the information can be used, for example 
in risk assessments. 
 
 A new table was proposed to facilitate reporting and aggregation of the data at global 
level.   Double-counting will occur when the same area is affected by different types of 
disturbance. To avoid double counting in State of Europe’s Forest, FOREST EUROPE had 
requested countries to specify both the total area of damaged forest, regardless of the 
damaging agents, along with areas subject to individual damaging agents.   
 
 The definitions should be made more precise. Remarks and examples would be helpful to 
show when disturbances are serious enough to be reported. The “year of outbreak” may 
also be difficult to establish or define, e.g. with repeated insect attacks. 
 
 Unclear which other types of disturbance should be reported: does this include, for ex-
ample, earthquakes, shifting cultivation, coastal degradation or grazing from wildlife?  
 
 It can sometimes be difficult to get information about the area damaged.  
 
Table 7b Area affected by fire 
 Should grass fires be reported here?  
 
 Mixed views about dropping the number of fires; arguments against are that information 
about the number of fires is more reliable than area, and it helps explain the area. 
  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 29 
 Support for providing countries with RS data; details should be provided on sources and 
methodology and validation at country level should be allowed. Need to define “forest 
area” used for RS.  
Table 8 Employment 
 Include the external data on employment in the wood products, and pulp and paper in-
dustries.  (What is the source of the UNIDO data?)  
 
 Can the Table be pre-filled from FAOSTAT? 
 
 Include request for data on employment related to forest recreation. 
 
 How is informal employment reported? 
 
 What about seasonal employment? 
 
 It may be difficult to report on the proposed sub-categories.  
 
Table 9 Graduation of students in forest-related education 
 General support for this Table. 
 
 What should be reported:  the number of graduates in a single year, the cumulative 
number or a five-year average? 
 
 What about graduates from other countries? 
 
 What about those who do not work in forestry after graduation. 
 
 Need to clarify what is meant by “forest-related” education, perhaps through examples 
and remarks. What about (e.g.) biology and agronomy forest related education?  
 
 Perhaps expand the Table to measure capacity for forest management.  
Table 10a Policies, Legislation and national platform for stakeholder participation in forest policy 
 Mixed views on this Table.  Suggested that comments/qualitative data are added about 
the specific measures implemented at country level because answer “yes” or “not” does 
not reveal whether these policies and legislations are effectively implemented, or at 
what level. The yes/no answer reveals nothing about quality of policies, legislation or 
stakeholder participation.   
 
 Is this aligned with FAOLEX? 
 
 Inclusion of traceability was well received but to answer yes or no would not give much 
information. The indicator should be refined to allow comments and additional data.    
Table 10b Area of permanent forest estate 
 Agreed that this is “Not applicable” in some countries. 
 
 Countries should provide remarks on their definitions. 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 30 
External data 
 Support for use of this external data. 
 
 Invite FSC and PEFC to collaborate on how to avoid double counting. 
 
18. During the Plenary discussion on Topic 4, experts further commented that: 
 Table 7a requires further thought. The FRA 2015 Report said nothing about disturbances.  
However, it is an important topic and “resilience” features in the GFG targets. Sound concep-
tual architecture is required for reporting on disturbances in a way that provides a useful 
global assessment.  The title of the table should be “Natural Disturbances” as human activi-
ties such as logging are not included. 
 
 The number of fires in Table 7b is problematic where (e.g.) three fires merge into one mega-
fire. Some countries do not report when they consider that the information requested is not 
meaningful.  
 
 Countries may face difficulties in reporting on the sub-categories in Table 8. Although the 
ISIC categories provide a structure, all employees within a company may be allocated to the 
ISIC category that fits the main activity of that company instead of being split according to 
sub-category.  
 
Agenda item 6.  FRA 2020 specific components 
19. Mr Toni Strandell (Reaktor Innovations Ltd) gave a presentation on progress to date in developing 
the FRA country reporting platform, explaining that experts would be able to try out a prototype 
during Working Group sessions. The process had included an insight and design phase (with insight 
building, a validation workshop with NCs, and co-creation design and review workshops) and a de-
velopment phase leading to the prototype for consideration at this meeting. This would be followed 
by wider testing during summer 2017 and production use in early 2018.   
 
20. Mr Lars Marklund (FAO) outlined developments in the use of Remote Sensing for FRA.  He ex-
plained that RS had first been used in FRA 1980 and extended in FRA 1990 and FRA 2000, with the 
production of a Global forest map 2000 and a map of global ecological zones. FRA 2010 made a glob-
al RS survey with about 13,500 sample tiles to estimate forest area and forest area changes and up-
dated the Global forest map. FRA 2015 included an update of the map of global ecological zones. 
More recently, the Global Forest Survey used the Collect Earth tool and visual interpretation of very 
high-resolution satellite imagery, to collect data on tree cover, shrub cover, IPCC land use classes, 
FRA categories, and historical changes on about 476,000 sample points. In 2016, COFO requested 
FAO to reinforce the use of RS in the FRA process; to support countries in strengthening the collec-
tion, analysis and dissemination of forest data; and to explore innovative techniques for supporting 
countries in data collection and reporting. Recent technological developments have improved access 
to satellite imagery, pre-processed products (e.g. Google Earth Engine) and cloud computing plat-
forms for fast data processing. The objective of the FRA 2020 RS component is to generate and dis-
seminate RS products at global, regional and biome level to support and complement the FRA pro-
gramme; it will also support countries by facilitating access to RS products, tools and methods.  There 
would be a Global RS Survey to generate statistics on forest area and forest area change at global, 
regional and biome level; global maps; a section in the FRA platform for countries to ac-
cess/download data and generate statistics from existing geospatial data sets; and capacity building.    
 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 31 
Agenda item 7. FRA and linkages with sustainability indicators 
21. Mr Kit Prins referred to the Background Paper and explained that the role of the proposed Global 
Core Set of Forest-related Indicators (GCS) is to monitor progress towards internationally agreed 
forest policy goals, as articulated in the SDGs, the Global Forest Goals (GFGs) and targets contained 
within the UNSPF, and forest-related targets agreed by the Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD and UN-
FCCC).  Recognising the dangers of possible overlap, duplication and inconsistency in such monitor-
ing, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) had initiated the development of a stream-lined 
GCS, building on existing work, including FRA and the regional criteria and indicator (C&I) for SFM 
processes. Following a side-event at the 2015 World Forest Congress, there had been workshops, an 
Organisation Led Initiative (held in Rome in November 2016), subsequent discussion by a CPF task 
force, and on-line consultation. The UNFF had now invited the CPF to present its GCS proposal for 
consideration by the Forum at its thirteenth session, in May 2018.  Mr Prins concluded by inviting 
experts to provide their views on GCS proposals during working group sessions and plenary so that 
these could be taken into account by the CPF.   
 
Agenda item 8. Working groups   
22. The topics discussed by the second round of working groups were: the FRA on-line platform; re-
mote sensing; and the Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators (GCS).  
 
Wednesday 14 June   
Agenda item 9. Presentation of group reports and discussion 
FRA on line-platform. 
23. The report from the Working Group discussion noted that: 
 The approach to national data was positively received and the transparency in the graphs 
was appreciated. There were questions about how many data points to insert where a lot are 
available, about how to support regional data and about support for “partial” data points. 
 
 Regarding interpolation and extrapolation, it was recognised that many extrapolation func-
tions are needed. There was discussion about adjustability of the extrapolation; the im-
portance of being able to edit values manually using extrapolation functions; and allowing 
the possibility for countries not to use extrapolation functions. The NCs need to be in control 
of the extrapolation. 
 
 The flexibility of the national approach to data entry (use, not use, or use and modify) re-
ceived positive feedback. The copy and paste facility for Excel data was perceived as a key 
feature.  Validation and consistency checks are required. Ways of describing the origin of da-
ta, data sources and other background information requires clarification. There is a desire to 
use data from external / other reports in reporting; to link to external files; and to support 
uploading studies in national data points. “Not applicable” needs to be distinguished from 
“not available” and zero values. There was also discussion about access rights of the collabo-
rators, and whether these should be the same as NC rights; and about supported languages.  
 
 There was a lot of interest in using the data in various ways, including access to other coun-
tries’ reports; exporting the data during editing; grouping data (e.g. for regional studies); and 
using the data for visualisations.  
 
 Some design features were absent in the prototype. These included showing units (e.g. ha or 
1000 ha), non-linear extrapolation functions, handling manually edited data differently from 
generated data, labels on graphs, and validation of selected years when saving a national da-
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 32 
ta point. It was noted that the prototype appears to work on iPad / phones, but the proto-
type does not currently support Internet Explorer. 
 
24. During the Plenary discussion, appreciation was shown for the work that had been undertaken on 
the FRA on-line platform.  None of those experts present indicated a need for the platform to sup-
port Internet Explorer. Further suggestions were that: 
 Countries should contact the FRA team if they wish to pilot the platform, and it would be 
valuable if there could be a communications network through which these countries could 
share experiences. 
 
 In due course a set of FAQs would be needed. 
 
Remote sensing  
25. The report from the Working Group discussion noted that: 
 Among the four lines of action outlined in the proposal in the background paper, there was a 
general support for all, and specifically the importance of the sampling-based RS survey and 
country support was stressed. 
 
 FAO should continue to produce statistics at global, regional and biome levels and refrain 
from publishing statistics at country level based on independent remote sensing analysis. 
What FAO publishes is seen by the general public as official / endorsed information. 
 
 However, FAO can facilitate such statistics to countries as supporting information in the 
country reporting process. 
 
 In order to generate statistics, a sampling-based component is required.  Maps together with 
a sample can improve statistics. 
 
 Important to distinguish between tree cover and forest land use. Traditional RS products look 
at tree cover. With new very high-resolution images it is possible to better assess land use – 
opportunity for FAO. 
 
 Mixed views on making the Global Forest Survey dataset public.  Some countries were con-
cerned that anyone could then make country-level estimates, and as data come from FAO, 
they are considered “official”.  Some countries would like to get access to data and validate 
before publishing.  Other countries preferred to not be involved at all in validation as that 
may be seen that they then have endorsed the data. Other participants stressed the im-
portance to make the dataset public as soon as possible. 
 
 The issue on how to handle and make available data from RS samples should be solved be-
fore a new RS survey is undertaken. 
 
 RS could be used by FRA to further look into issues like primary forest, forest degradation, 
disturbances, etc. 
 
 There was a general agreement that support to countries is fundamental and contribute to 
the FRA process.  The tools demonstrated were well received. 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 33 
26. During the Plenary discussion, the following points were made: 
 RS is a new and rapidly developing technology.  It is important to think creatively about its 
benefits beyond the context of the current framework for data collection and presentation.  
 
 The potential for developing the use of RS to track disturbances, and what happens to land 
after deforestation/degradation should be further explored.   
 
 FAO should make use of existing country experience in RS. 
 
 As the global RS survey is a resource intensive project that will take time, there is a need for 
urgency so that results are available for FRA 2020.  It is important to validate sample points.  
 
 The use of historic systematic samples is not sensitive to changes in land use etc. 
 
 The Global Forest Survey belongs to other partners as well as FAO, and so data cannot be re-
leased only under an FAO banner.   
 
 Constraints on publishing RS results at national level means that there is a danger of not 
making full use of information from RS.  
 
 FAO does not have a monopoly on RS. It is increasingly easy for others to produce attractive 
and well-presented maps that are based on poor quality data. To address this, there is an 
important role for FAO as a leader in publishing high quality material presenting attractively 
produced and authoritative information about global forest resources. 
Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators.   
27. During the Working Group discussion, suggestions were made for improving the GCS.  These are 
summarised in the following Table (where bold text shows insertion, strike-through text shows dele-
tion and square brackets show comments): 
 
 Global Core Set (draft) unit 
1 Forest area net change rate  % 
2 Proportion of forest area located within legally estab-
lished protected areas 
% 
3 Above-ground biomass stock in forest   Tonnes 
4 Forest area designated and/or managed for protection of 
soil,  and water, infrastructure and managed natural 
resources [make consistent with FRA treatment of man-
agement objectives] 
% of total forest area 
Ha 
5 Change in Employment related to the forest sector [in-
cluding related downstream industry, research, educa-
tion, tourism and NWFPs as far as possible] 
% change 
Number FTE 
6 Existence of effective policies, strategies and institutions 
which explicitly encourage supporting SFM  
References (title, date 
URL etc.) 
7 Existence of scientifically sound national or sub-national 
forest assessment processes [use FRA 2020 terminology 
about characteristics of NFI process] 
References (title, date 
URL etc.) 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 34 
8 Existence of a national or sub-national mechanism to 
secure multi-stakeholder platform participation in the 
development and implementation of forest-related poli-
cies [See FRA2020 definition of stakeholder platform] 
References (title, date 
URL etc.) 
9 Proportion of forest area under a long-term forest man-
agement plan [See FRA2020 for definition of long term 
forest management plan] 
% 
10 Proportion of Forest area under an independently veri-
fied forest management certification scheme [See FRA 
2020 for definition of independently verified forest man-
agement certification scheme] 
 % 
Ha 
11  [Combined with 17] 
12 Volume of wood removals [reinstated] m3 
13 Existence of traceability system(s) for wood products  
[caution needed: traceability may apply to legality, not 
sustainability]  
 
 
References (title, date, 
URL,  state of develop-
ment (operational, 
being developed, under 
consideration) etc.  
14 Proportion of forest area disturbed [if necessary reword 
to be consistent with FRA 2020]  
% of forest area 
15 Change in Area of degraded forest [urgently requires 
further consideration] 
% 
Ha 
16 Change in Number of forest dependent people in ex-
treme poverty [important and further work needed but 
not for FRA] 
 % change 
Number 
17 Financial resources from all sources for the implementa-
tion of sustainable forest management [important and 
further work needed but not for FRA] 
$/ha of forest 
(or trends in total 
amounts) 
$ 
18 Total supply of wood-based energy [reinstated because 
of importance in both developing and developed coun-
tries] 
M j 
19  [PES dropped] 
20  [Recovery rate dropped] 
21 Net GHG sink/source of forests, and carbon storage in 
harvested wood products [UNFCCC monitoring process] 
Tons C 
New  
#1 
Change in area of primary forests [to address Aichi  tar-
get 5 using an FRA term] 
Ha 
 
28. The Working Groups noted that, as with all indicators, analysis must take account of context, and 
national circumstances.  In some cases, it may not be clear whether an increase or a decrease of the 
indicator is “sustainable”. In any case, the Global Core Set should be taken as a whole 
 
29. The CPF Task Force should be informed that the following indicators require urgent work on con-
cepts and/or definitions before they are usable, but should be in the GCS because of strong policy 
commitment: 
• #15 Area of forest degradation. 
• #16 Number of forest dependent people in extreme poverty. 
• #17 Finance from all sources for implementing SFM. 
30. A “candidate list” of indicators/topics not yet suitable for inclusion in the GCS, but which deserve 
further consideration, was identified by the Working Groups for possible inclusion in a revised list: 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 35 
• Contribution of forests to food security 
• Payment for forest ecosystem services 
• Economic aspects of SFM (e.g. forest share of GDP, livelihoods/revenues from forests) 
• Social aspects of SFM 
 
31.  During the Plenary discussion on the GCS, experts further commented that: 
 The GCS should not have too many indicators.  Some experts were reluctant to add new indi-
cators at this late stage; others considered that a set of about 20 indicators is probably just 
about acceptable. 
 FRA can only meet the data needs relevant to some of the indicators. The CPF Task Force will 
need to identify sources of data for other GCS indicators. 
 There needs to be a narrative around the GCS. Experience from regional C&I for SFM pro-
cesses show that, as well as having a succinct meaningful title, all indicators need a clear ra-
tionale. The links to SDGs, GFG targets and Aichi Biodiversity Targets identified in Annex 1 of 
the Background Paper are helpful in this regard, but further work is needed including the de-
velopment of companion notes for each indicator. 
 It is important to concentrate on the indicators that meet high-level policy needs. Issues such 
as the contribution of forests to the livelihoods of many of the poorest people in the world 
(the figure of 1.6 billion is often quoted) and to food security are directly relevant to SDG1 
and SDG2.  There is a danger of being too forest-centric, focussing on indicators where data 
is readily available about the state of the world’s forests; this would lead to an unbalanced 
list. 
 Regional C&I for SFM processes have played a key role in developing the concepts underlying 
the Global Core Set, and might be involved in finalising the set.  This applies especially to in-
dicators addressed through the CFRQ mechanism. 
 Countries may wish to use the GCS framework to structure national datasets. 
 #6, #7, #8, #13: it was suggested that lists of references provide a useful data source but are 
rather unusual not appropriate as an indicator. On the other hand, these policies, processes 
and systems etc do demonstrate how countries have responded to the pressures represent-
ed by high level targets, and so this approach fits well with the established Pres-
sure/State/Response structure of indicator sets. 
 #15: the indicator should reflect the policy goal of forest landscape restoration, rather than 
measuring the area of degraded forest. Forest landscapes include, e.g., agro-forestry and 
pastoral systems as well as forests, and countries are identifying voluntary contributions to 
meet the Bonn Challenge.  
 #17: add at end “at global, regional and national levels”. 
 #21: this should be revised to refer consistently to units of GHG rather than carbon. 
 New #1: The area of Natural Forest, or Naturally Regenerated Forest, might be preferable to 
area of Primary Forest because the Primary Forest concept is not sufficiently well established 
and the data could be misleading. Furthermore, well managed planted forests can also be 
valuable for biodiversity. In any case, it is important that there is consistency with FRA.  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 36 
Agenda item 10. Strengthening of FRA 2020 
32. Ms Leticia Piña (FAO) introduced this item, focusing on capacity development. She explained that 
capacity building has always been a key issue for FRA, and that the objectives for FRA 2020 include 
further capacity building. This will be achieved through capacity building for completion of the FRA 
2020 reports, with a Global Workshop, regional and sub-regional workshops; capacity building on use 
of remote sensing for the FRA reporting; and the strengthening of national networks for the FRA 
2020 reporting process in order to enhance awareness and improve data availability and dissemina-
tion.  
 
Agenda item 11. Working groups   
33. Working Groups discussed capacity development and continued to discuss the FRA on-line plat-
form. In addition, there was a parallel discussion on remote sensing and a FRA Advisory Group meet-
ing.   
 
Agenda item 12. Presentation of group reports and discussion 
Capacity Development 
34. The following feed-back from Working groups on capacity development was reported: 
 General recommendations    
 
• FRA should make use of country experience and consider requesting collaboration 
from country experts to support the FRA secretariat. 
 
• Have regional focal points in the FRA secretariat.   
 
Comments/ Recommendations for Global workshops:  
 
• Invite volunteer countries to compile pilot reports before the Global Workshop. 
 
• Encourage NCs from the same regions/sub regions to work together.   
 
• Select countries with good examples of a coordinated FRA reporting process and in-
vite them to present their experiences during the workshop. 
 
• Encourage coordination with those engaged in SDG reporting at different levels. 
 
Comments/ Recommendations to strengthen the network of national correspondents, experts 
and partners at global level 
 
• Have an online platform to support communication, but also keep the traditional 
channels (skype, telephone, email, etc). 
 
• Have NC focal points animating the network. 
 
 
Comments/ Recommendations for the Regional/ sub regional workshops 
 
• If training is provided during the Workshop, then is good to meet towards the end to 
finalize the report. 
 
• Workshops allow exchange of experiences with others in similar situations. They are 
better held sooner rather than later so as to know the state of the progress and be 
able to react if there are problems. 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 37 
• Continue with FAQ document and include new questions when they arise.  
 
• Consider allowing regional organizations and at least two participants per country, to 
attend; useful to include someone from the National Statistical Office 
 
Comments/ Recommendations for the national level workshops 
 
• Useful for countries to know how coordination with the National Statistical Offices 
works.  In some countries collaboration has been established from long ago, in oth-
ers the reality is different. 
 
• Statistics at national level are organized differently. Suggest that NCs find out how it 
works at country level. Request FRA to provide information on the SDG process, in-
cluding how this is organized at all levels, especially at country level. 
 
Good examples at country level  
 
• Collaborate with REDD+ teams at country level to strengthen the FRA network. 
 
• Some countries have validation workshops for forest related data (with national 
and/or international participants). 
 
35. During discussion, it was suggested that: 
 Focal points for the Rio Conventions should be invited to regional/sub-regional national 
workshops on FRA to encourage collaboration. 
Remote sensing 
36. Following the parallel discussion on RS, the following additional suggestions were made:  
 Sampling-based remote sensing survey is a key activity that should continue. 
 
 Regarding Global forest mapping, the minimum ambition is to develop a visual product. Be-
yond that, the aim should be to integrate forest land use and human interaction; this should 
include, e.g. intact, primary and degraded forest – a process is needed to discuss detail and 
piloting.  
 
 Update the Global Ecological Zones map to support the IPCC Good Practice Guidance refine-
ment; and update default values of biomass and carbon for countries that lack national data. 
 
 Continued country support and capacity development to develop national map products. 
37. Points made during discussion were: 
 The importance of validating RS products, and interaction with countries. 
 
 The need for establishing an appropriate and efficient statistical design. 
 
 The potential for using very high-resolution images to identify changes. 
 
 The potential for using Collect Earth as a tool during FRA. 
 
 The need for the FRA forest definition to be consistent with data that is collected.  
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 38 
Thursday 15 June 
Field Trip 
38. The Finnish hosts organized a study tour. Topics discussed were forest management in private 
forests; the utilisation and conservation of mires; the forest-based bioeconomy in North Karelia; and 
the management of protected forest areas in Finland (case study Koli National Park).    
 
Friday 16 June   
Agenda item 13. Wrap up of discussions and adoption of the report  
39. The Chairperson presented the draft final report for consideration and adoption by the meeting, 
and invited experts to focus on Section III (Key findings and recommendations). The following points 
were made: 
 Subject to the points made during this discussion, Section III successfully captures the key 
findings and recommendations.   
 In addition, the FRA secretariat will make use of suggestions contained in Annex 4, recognis-
ing however that this Annex also includes general observations and some ideas that did not 
receive widespread support. 
 It is important to further clarify the rationale for required reporting years in the documenta-
tion. 
 Table 2a: there was discussion about the use of the term primary forest, and its definition. It 
was stressed that other processes depend on FRA collecting this information and it is also 
one of the CFRQ variables. The Explanatory Notes should further clarify reporting on this var-
iable. 
 Table 2b: although rubber plantations are being dropped from Table 2b, they are still cap-
tured within the definition of forest. 
 Table 5a: experts requested the opportunity to test the suggested new Table during the new 
on-line platform pilot. 
 Table 6a: in some countries it can be problematic to identify land “owned by local, tribal and 
indigenous communities” as being in “private ownership”. However, including an “of which 
by local, tribal and indigenous communities” under “public” ownership could also complicate 
reporting.  The conclusion was to keep the current formulation.  
 Table 7a: the FRA secretariat will share the proposals it receives with other experts who par-
ticipated in the Expert Consultation. 
 Table 8: it would be useful to allow countries to view and comment on UNIDO statistics on 
employment in the wood products industries. 
 Table 9: asking for information about the number of graduates in a single year could mask 
fluctuations. Annual information should be requested. IFSA offered to help the FRA secretar-
iat to develop the Explanatory Notes to clarify what is meant by “forest-related” education. 
 Table 10a: align GCS indicators with FRA text on “references and weblinks to relevant poli-
cies, legislation and platforms” and on traceability systems. 
 FRA on-line platform: maintain consistency between FRA platform, FAOSTAT, JFSQ and other 
external data sources used in the FRA reporting.  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 39 
 GCS: comments on the discussion, as reported in this Annex should be sent to the FRA secre-
tariat (fra@fao.org) before 30 June 2017.  
 Capacity development: it was clarified that the purpose of having regional focal points is to 
give NCs a point of contact in the FRA secretariat. 
40. The Chairperson invited experts to send the FRA secretariat comments on the Report Annexes 
before 30 June 2017.  Subject to these possible amendments, the Report was endorsed.    
   
Agenda item 14. FRA 2020 Next steps 
41. Mr Anssi Pekkarinen (FAO) outlined the timeline for FRA 2020. The scoping process (2016-17) is 
nearing completion, capacity building is beginning, and data collection will start in early 2018. Data 
analysis will take place in 2018-19, followed by publications and outreach in 2019-20.  So far, 161 NCs 
have been nominated. Following this Expert Consultation, the next steps are the finalization, internal 
clearance and FRA Advisory Group endorsement of the FRA 2020 specifications. FRA platform testing 
will start in September 2017. The RS work plan will also be finalized, based on experts’ recommenda-
tions, and implementation of capacity building will start. Action on capacity development will include 
organising the Global and regional-sub regional workshops, and national level capacity building. 
There will be a Global Launch of FRA 2020 in Mexico in January or February 2018, with a focus on 
training and data entry. Reminding experts that the FRA 2020 is a partnership, he said that the vision 
for FRA 2020 is that it should be an acknowledged centre of excellence for global forest monitoring 
and capacity development, and the global hub for most recent and trusted forest information.    
 
Agenda item 15.  Closing session 
 
Any other business 
42. Mr Joberto Veloso de Freitas informed experts that the XX IUFRO World Forestry Congress will 
take place in Curitiba, Brazil, from 29 September to 5 October 2019. 
 
Closing remarks 
 
43. Mr Kari Korhonen (Natural Resources Institute Finland, Luke), thanked experts for holding their 
Expert Consultation in Joensuu. 
 
44. Mr Anssi Pekkarinen (FAO) reiterated thanks to the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) and 
the City of Joensuu for their support. He also expressed appreciation for financial contributions from 
the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Euro-
pean Union. In addition, he thanked MTK (the Finnish Forest Owners’ Association), the Regional 
Council of North Karelia, the Finnish Forests & Parks Service and all others who had provided hospi-
tality during the field trip. Finally, he thanked the Chair, members of the Advisory Group, the drafting 
committee and experts for their constructive participation in the Expert Consultation. 
 
45. Experts thanked staff in the FAO secretariat and the Natural Resources Institute, Finland (Luke) 
for all their hard work in organising a successful meeting. 
 
46. The Chairperson closed the Expert Consultation at 11.15 am. 
 
 
 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 40 
Annex 5 List of FRA 2020 Tables  
Table 1a Extent of forest, other wooded land and other land 
Table 1b Annual forest area loss, gain and net change 
Table 2a Forest characteristics 
Table 2b Specific forest categories 
Table 3a Growing stock 
Table 3b Growing stock composition 
Table 3c Biomass stock 
Table 3d Carbon stock 
Table 4 Non wood forest products removals 2015 
Table 5a Management objective 
Table 5b Forest area within protected areas and forest area with long-term management plans 
Table 6a Forest ownership 
Table 6b Holder of management rights of public forests 
Table 7a Disturbances  
Table 7b Area affected by fire 
Table 7c Degraded forest 
Table 8 Employment 
Table 9 Graduation of students in forest-related education 
Table 10a Policies, Legislation and national platform for stakeholder participation in forest policy 
Table 10b Area of permanent forest estate 
  
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 41 
Annex 6 Pictures from the Expert Consultation 
 
Figure 1. Plenary session 12.6.2017 
 
Figure 2. Group photo 12.6.2017 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 42 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Group work 13.6.2017 
 
Figure 4. Group reports and discussions 14.6.2017 
Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 68/2017 
 43 
 
 
Figure 5. Field trip to Kontiolahti near Joensuu meeting a private forest owner 15.6.2017 
 
Figure 6. Group photo at Koli National Park 15.6.2017 
1DWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGELRHFRQRP\VWXGLHV 
 44 
 
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV,QVWLWXWH)LQODQG
/DWRNDUWDQRQNDDUL
),+HOVLQNL)LQODQG
WHO