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