为什么非木材森林产品仍然是全球森林资源评估中的 "穷亲戚"?

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103232
C.M. Shackleton , O. Adeyemi , S. Setty
{"title":"为什么非木材森林产品仍然是全球森林资源评估中的 \"穷亲戚\"?","authors":"C.M. Shackleton ,&nbsp;O. Adeyemi ,&nbsp;S. Setty","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To conserve and use forests sustainably, it is helpful to have accurate and regular assessments of their health and status. A key tool in this regard is the regular global overview provided by the Food and Agriculture Programme (FAO) in their Global Forest Resources Assessments (GFRA), now issued every five years. As of 2000, the GFRA required member countries to report statistics related to non-wood forest products (NWFPs). However, the NWFP statistics in the country appendices to the GFRA bear little resemblance to the situation on the ground, as shown by our assessment of entries for India, Nigeria, and South Africa against verified in-country studies. Our analysis shows that GFRAs often inaccurately report NWFP quantities, lack consistency between reports, omit data on amounts or values even when in-country studies exist, list the top ten NWFPs inaccurately, and fail to cite sources. Taken together, these shortcomings mean that the NWFP country statistics in the GFRA cannot be used to make comparisons between countries, regions or globally, track trends, or make policy or management decisions. The underlying reasons for these shortcomings are considered. Lastly, we suggest nine steps that need to be implemented to make the NWFP section of the GFRA reports a reliable and valued source of data and global analysis, that can be used by policy- and decision-makers and researchers globally.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000856/pdfft?md5=069d59474c39c860a291b1a3ec63de3d&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124000856-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are non-wood forest products still the poor relative in Global Forest Resources Assessments?\",\"authors\":\"C.M. Shackleton ,&nbsp;O. Adeyemi ,&nbsp;S. Setty\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To conserve and use forests sustainably, it is helpful to have accurate and regular assessments of their health and status. A key tool in this regard is the regular global overview provided by the Food and Agriculture Programme (FAO) in their Global Forest Resources Assessments (GFRA), now issued every five years. As of 2000, the GFRA required member countries to report statistics related to non-wood forest products (NWFPs). However, the NWFP statistics in the country appendices to the GFRA bear little resemblance to the situation on the ground, as shown by our assessment of entries for India, Nigeria, and South Africa against verified in-country studies. Our analysis shows that GFRAs often inaccurately report NWFP quantities, lack consistency between reports, omit data on amounts or values even when in-country studies exist, list the top ten NWFPs inaccurately, and fail to cite sources. Taken together, these shortcomings mean that the NWFP country statistics in the GFRA cannot be used to make comparisons between countries, regions or globally, track trends, or make policy or management decisions. The underlying reasons for these shortcomings are considered. Lastly, we suggest nine steps that need to be implemented to make the NWFP section of the GFRA reports a reliable and valued source of data and global analysis, that can be used by policy- and decision-makers and researchers globally.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000856/pdfft?md5=069d59474c39c860a291b1a3ec63de3d&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124000856-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000856\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000856","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了可持续地保护和利用森林,对森林的健康和状况进行准确和定期的评估是很有帮助的。这方面的一个重要工具是联合国粮食及农业组织 (FAO) 在其全球森林资源评估 (GFRA) 中提供的定期全球概览,该评估现在每五年发布一次。截至 2000 年,全球森林资源评估要求成员国报告与非木材森林产品 (NWFP) 相关的统计数据。然而,全球森林资源评估报告国家附录中的非木材森林产品统计数据与实际情况并不相符,我们根据经核实的国内研究对印度、尼日利亚和南非的条目进行的评估就表明了这一点。我们的分析表明,《全球粮食储备报告》经常不准确地报告了非粮食生产国的数量,不同报告之间缺乏一致性,即使存在国内研究,也会遗漏数量或价值方面的数据,不准确地列出十大非粮食生产国,并且没有引用资料来源。总之,这些缺陷意味着《全球粮食储备报告》中的非粮食消耗量国家统计数据不能用于国家、地区或全球之间的比较,不能用于跟踪趋势,也不能用于政策或管理决策。我们考虑了造成这些缺陷的根本原因。最后,我们提出了需要实施的九个步骤,以使全球粮食署报告中的西北边境省部分成为可靠和有价值的数据和全球分析来源,供全球政策制定者、决策者和研究人员使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why are non-wood forest products still the poor relative in Global Forest Resources Assessments?

To conserve and use forests sustainably, it is helpful to have accurate and regular assessments of their health and status. A key tool in this regard is the regular global overview provided by the Food and Agriculture Programme (FAO) in their Global Forest Resources Assessments (GFRA), now issued every five years. As of 2000, the GFRA required member countries to report statistics related to non-wood forest products (NWFPs). However, the NWFP statistics in the country appendices to the GFRA bear little resemblance to the situation on the ground, as shown by our assessment of entries for India, Nigeria, and South Africa against verified in-country studies. Our analysis shows that GFRAs often inaccurately report NWFP quantities, lack consistency between reports, omit data on amounts or values even when in-country studies exist, list the top ten NWFPs inaccurately, and fail to cite sources. Taken together, these shortcomings mean that the NWFP country statistics in the GFRA cannot be used to make comparisons between countries, regions or globally, track trends, or make policy or management decisions. The underlying reasons for these shortcomings are considered. Lastly, we suggest nine steps that need to be implemented to make the NWFP section of the GFRA reports a reliable and valued source of data and global analysis, that can be used by policy- and decision-makers and researchers globally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
Reviewing factors that influence voluntary participation in conservation programs in Latin America Preliminary evidence of softwood shortage and hardwood availability in EU regions: A spatial analysis using the European Forest Industry Database How contracted tree farmers engage in and benefit from inclusive value chains: Evidence from Vietnam Outsourcing stumpage price uncertainty with American put option for active timber management1 Multiple crises as a policy window for forest and nature a power-analysis from Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1