{"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 , O. Adeyemi , 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 , O. Adeyemi , 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}
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.
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.