Global Forest Resources Assessment - User and Potential ...€¦ · No (If no, skip to Question 11) 15.4% 4 answered question 26 skipped question 0 2. 2. How would you rate the overall

1 of 22

Global Forest Resources Assessment - User and

Potential User Survey

1. 1. Have you used the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 84.6% 22

No (If no, skip to Question 11) 15.4% 4

answered question 26

skipped question 0

2. 2. How would you rate the overall reliability of data from the Forest Resources

Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 13.6% 3

Good 59.1% 13

Fair 27.3% 6

Poor 0.0% 0

No opinion 0.0% 0


skipped question 4

Summary by Audience - Gov't & Public Sector

2 of 22

3. 3. What do you value most about the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)? (Select all

that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Credibility of the data 52.4% 11

Country Reports 52.4% 11

Global nature of the information 66.7% 14

Consistency of key variables over

time47.6% 10

Usefulness of the information in

contributing to policy making33.3% 7


contributing to investment or

business decisions

4.8% 1

Other (please specify)

2


skipped question 5


3 of 22

4. 4. How have you used the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)? (Select all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

A source of data for research or

publication68.2% 15

Informing policy development 45.5% 10

Supporting advocacy work 4.5% 1

Informing investment or business

decisions 0.0% 0

Contributing to teaching materials 45.5% 10

News media reports 9.1% 2

Other (please specify) 0


skipped question 4

5. 5. How would you rate the ease of use of the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 22.7% 5

Moderately easy 63.6% 14

Difficult 13.6% 3

Very difficult 0.0% 0

No opinion 0.0% 0

How would you suggest making the FRA easier to use?

4


skipped question 4


4 of 22

6. 6. How frequently do you use information from the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)

in the formats listed below?

Very often Often Seldom NeverNot

Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 10.5% (2) 36.8% (7) 52.6% (10) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 19

Main Report 5.0% (1) 60.0% (12) 35.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20

FRA Database 14.3% (3) 23.8% (5) 47.6% (10) 14.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 21

Country Reports 5.0% (1) 40.0% (8) 50.0% (10) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 20

Key Findings 21.1% (4) 36.8% (7) 31.6% (6) 5.3% (1) 5.3% (1) 19

Global Tables 15.8% (3) 31.6% (6) 47.4% (9) 5.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 19

FRA Newsletter 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 58.8% (10) 17.6% (3) 5.9% (1) 17

Educational material (Natural

Inquirer, the world’s forests edition)5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 41.2% (7) 29.4% (5) 11.8% (2) 17

CD-ROM 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 29.4% (5) 47.1% (8) 11.8% (2) 17


skipped question 4


5 of 22

7. 7. How would you rate the current usefulness of each Forest Resources Assessment

(FRA) format?

Very Good Good Poor Very PoorNot

Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 25.0% (5) 55.0% (11) 20.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20

Main Report 14.3% (3) 85.7% (18) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 21

FRA Database 5.3% (1) 78.9% (15) 5.3% (1) 5.3% (1) 5.3% (1) 19

Country Reports 4.8% (1) 76.2% (16) 9.5% (2) 4.8% (1) 4.8% (1) 21

Key Findings 30.0% (6) 60.0% (12) 5.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 5.0% (1) 20

Global Tables 26.3% (5) 57.9% (11) 15.8% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 19

FRA Newsletter 5.6% (1) 66.7% (12) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 18



CD-ROM 10.5% (2) 31.6% (6) 10.5% (2) 0.0% (0) 47.4% (9) 19


skipped question 4


6 of 22

8. 8. Are there other formats for Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) content that you

would value? (Check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Enhanced database 55.0% 11

Shorter technical synthesis

document50.0% 10

Reports on specific topics 50.0% 10

Regional reports 40.0% 8

Social media (e.g. Twitter, Wikis,

Facebook, LinkedIn)15.0% 3

Webinars 15.0% 3

Videos 25.0% 5

Presentations 35.0% 7



skipped question 6


7 of 22

9. 9. How would you rank the following Forest Resources Assessment 2010 topics in order

of importance to you? (Select your top 3 and rank them as #1, #2 and #3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count

Extent of forest resources (Forest

area, growing stock, biomass,

carbon, characteristics)

1.23 27 22

Biological diversity (primary forest,

conservation, protected areas,

composition)

2.50 30 12

Forest health and vitality (fire,

insects, diseases)

2.91 32 11

Productive functions of forests

(production, planted forest,

removals, afforestation and

reforestation)

2.56 41 16

Protective functions of forests

(protective forests)

2.92 38 13

Socio-economic functions

3.42 41 12

Legal, policy and institutional

framework (Policy and legal

framework, institutional framework,

education and research)

2.83 34 12


skipped question 4


8 of 22

10. 10. What topics would you like to see more or less of in FRA 2015?

More No Change Less No OpinionResponse

Count

Natural forest 38.1% (8) 52.4% (11) 4.8% (1) 4.8% (1) 21

Planted forest 47.6% (10) 42.9% (9) 4.8% (1) 4.8% (1) 21

Biodiversity/conservation 40.9% (9) 45.5% (10) 4.5% (1) 9.1% (2) 22

Standing stocks (volume, biomass,

carbon)40.9% (9) 50.0% (11) 0.0% (0) 9.1% (2) 22

Forest production 36.8% (7) 52.6% (10) 5.3% (1) 5.3% (1) 19

Forest health 36.8% (7) 47.4% (9) 5.3% (1) 10.5% (2) 19

Employment and livelihoods 36.8% (7) 47.4% (9) 10.5% (2) 5.3% (1) 19

Progress toward sustainable forest

management70.0% (14) 25.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 5.0% (1) 20

Policy and legislation 33.3% (6) 61.1% (11) 0.0% (0) 5.6% (1) 18



skipped question 4


9 of 22

11. 11. What are the main barriers or obstacles you encounter to using the Forest

Resources Assessment (FRA)? (Check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Was not aware of the resource 12.5% 3

Website is too difficult to navigate 4.2% 1

It is difficult finding the information

in the report16.7% 4

Data is fragmented in the Main

Report29.2% 7

Some data are not credible 41.7% 10

Database is difficult to use 12.5% 3

Data is too general and not specific

enough25.0% 6

I am concerned about the

reliability of the data41.7% 10

I have no barriers or obstacles to

using the FRA25.0% 6


2


skipped question 2


10 of 22

12. 12. In which forest-related subject areas are you most interested? (select all that apply)

(Check all that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Natural forest area and

characteristics65.4% 17

Planted forest area and


Historical forest area trends 65.4% 17

Biodiversity/conservation 30.8% 8

Deforestation rates/degradation 53.8% 14

Volume, biomass, carbon 61.5% 16

Forest production 50.0% 13

Forest health 34.6% 9

Employment and livelihoods 23.1% 6


management50.0% 13

Policy and legislation 26.9% 7

Projections of future change in

forests57.7% 15


1


skipped question 0


11 of 22

13. 13. Who do you currently work for?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Government or public-sector

organization100.0% 26

Non-governmental organization 0.0% 0

Intergovernmental organization 0.0% 0

Academic or research institution

(including students) 0.0% 0

Private company 0.0% 0

Media 0.0% 0



skipped question 0


12 of 22

14. 14. In what region do you operate from?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Eastern and Southern Africa 0.0% 0

Northern Africa 0.0% 0

Western and Central Africa 0.0% 0

East Asia 19.2% 5

South and Southeast Asia 11.5% 3

Western and Central Asia 0.0% 0

Europe 3.8% 1

Caribbean 0.0% 0

Central America 3.8% 1

North America 19.2% 5

Oceania 15.4% 4

South America 26.9% 7

Global 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

15. 15. If you could change one thing about the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), what

would it be?

Response

Count

13


skipped question 13


13 of 22

16. 16. Do you have any suggestions for enhancing the content, format, quality or promotion

for the next Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2015)?

Response

Count

10


skipped question 16


14 of 22

Page 3, Q2. 3. What do you value most about the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)? (Select all that apply)

1 assess the progress of SFM for policy making Apr 26, 2012 7:42 PM

2 Placing my country in global context Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

Page 3, Q4. 5. How would you rate the ease of use of the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)?

1 Answer refers to reliability/unreliability of data. Trends may be uncertain due todata-sorce changes. Comparisons between coutries may be hampered bydifferent (interpreations) of definitions etc...An important issue is to keepdeinintions stable over time to enable harmonization of interpretations anddevelopment of national inventories

May 2, 2012 5:36 AM

2 Cloud have also an spatial interface to the data base (geographically). Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

3 Incorporate in FAOSTAT Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

4 Using Webmapping interfaces. Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM


16 of 22

Page 3, Q8. 9. How would you rank the following Forest Resources Assessment 2010 topics in order ofimportance to you? (Select your top 3 and rank them as #1, #2 and #3)

Extent of forest resources (Forest area, growing stock, biomass, carbon, characteristics)

1 1 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

2 1 May 7, 2012 10:42 PM

3 1 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

4 1 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

5 1 May 3, 2012 7:41 PM

6 1 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

7 1 May 2, 2012 5:36 AM

8 1 May 1, 2012 5:28 AM

9 3 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

10 1 Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

11 1 Apr 26, 2012 7:52 PM

12 1 Apr 26, 2012 7:42 PM

13 1 Apr 26, 2012 11:48 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

15 1 Apr 26, 2012 6:07 AM

16 1 Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

17 1 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

18 1 Apr 25, 2012 6:58 PM

19 1 Apr 25, 2012 3:36 PM

20 1 Apr 25, 2012 5:28 AM

21 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 1 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Biological diversity (primary forest, conservation, protected areas, composition)

1 2 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM


17 of 22


2 3 May 7, 2012 10:42 PM

3 3 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

5 2 May 3, 2012 7:41 PM

6 1 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

9 2 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

10 2 Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

17 5 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

18 3 Apr 25, 2012 6:58 PM

21 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Forest health and vitality (fire, insects, diseases)

1 5 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

3 4 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

6 3 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

8 2 May 1, 2012 5:28 AM

9 1 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

16 3 Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

17 6 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

20 2 Apr 25, 2012 5:28 AM

21 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Productive functions of forests (production, planted forest, removals, afforestation and reforestation)

1 7 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM


18 of 22


3 2 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

4 2 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

6 2 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

7 3 May 2, 2012 5:36 AM

9 3 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

11 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:52 PM

13 2 Apr 26, 2012 11:48 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

15 2 Apr 26, 2012 6:07 AM

16 2 Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

17 2 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

19 2 Apr 25, 2012 3:36 PM

20 3 Apr 25, 2012 5:28 AM

21 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Protective functions of forests (protective forests)

1 3 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

3 5 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

4 3 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

6 2 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

7 2 May 2, 2012 5:36 AM

9 2 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

10 3 Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

12 3 Apr 26, 2012 7:42 PM

14 1 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM


19 of 22


17 7 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

18 2 Apr 25, 2012 6:58 PM

21 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM


1 6 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

2 2 May 7, 2012 10:42 PM

3 7 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

6 3 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

8 3 May 1, 2012 5:28 AM

9 3 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

15 3 Apr 26, 2012 6:07 AM

17 4 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

19 3 Apr 25, 2012 3:36 PM

21 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 2 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Legal, policy and institutional framework (Policy and legal framework, institutional framework, education andresearch)

1 4 May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

3 6 May 7, 2012 6:48 PM

5 3 May 3, 2012 7:41 PM

6 3 May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

9 3 Apr 30, 2012 10:00 AM

11 3 Apr 26, 2012 7:52 PM

12 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:42 PM


20 of 22


13 3 Apr 26, 2012 11:48 AM

14 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:47 AM

17 3 Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

21 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM

22 1 Apr 24, 2012 8:10 AM

Page 3, Q10. 11. What are the main barriers or obstacles you encounter to using the Forest ResourcesAssessment (FRA)?(Check all that apply)

1 it is neccesary to harmonzy with other international report May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

2 I am a librarian. I point other people to it, to use the resource. Apr 25, 2012 7:46 AM

Page 3, Q11. 12. In which forest-related subject areas are you most interested? (select all that apply)(Check all that apply)

1 Forest products production Apr 25, 2012 7:46 AM


21 of 22

Page 3, Q14. 15. If you could change one thing about the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), what would it be?

1 Enrich the data. May 7, 2012 10:42 PM

2 Collect own data rather than rely on countries collecting their own May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

3 period May 3, 2012 7:41 PM

4 credibilty of the information May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

5 More spatially oriented with maps and geographical data Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

6 As I have only just come across FRA having been sent this survey, I feel Icannot make any suggestions for change.

Apr 26, 2012 2:32 PM

7 Make the country report more compact. FAO calls for very detailed informationwhich requires long time for countries to answer and dispersed efforts. Thereport should focus on major issues and thus the quality of the data would bebetter.

Apr 26, 2012 11:48 AM

8 How the report is writen and organised. Apr 26, 2012 6:07 AM

9 Move dozen or so key variables toward a reational dababase system Apr 26, 2012 4:24 AM

10 Enhacing the reliabilty of data Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

11 Streamlining core variables and joint evaluation among the major C&Iprocesses.

Apr 25, 2012 6:58 PM

12 Increased data reliability and trend data Apr 25, 2012 3:36 PM

13 Need more specific data Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM


22 of 22

Page 3, Q15. 16. Do you have any suggestions for enhancing the content, format, quality or promotion for thenext Forest Resources Assessment (FRA 2015)?

1 Real time image of the notable potential changes occured in the natural forestsaround the world may be an added feature to enhance the viewership.

May 8, 2012 4:15 AM

2 - May 7, 2012 10:42 PM

3 enhance the evalutaion of the forests, give an estimtate trend of the future. May 3, 2012 7:48 AM

4 More spatially oriented with maps and geographical data Apr 27, 2012 4:18 AM

5 NA Apr 26, 2012 2:32 PM

6 Delete: Other land with tree cover; Private ownership of witch owned byindividulas Private ownership of witch owned byprivate business entities... Donot assume that local communities and indigenous live in private land, in Brazilthose are public land; Delete Table 2b - Holder of management rights of publicforests; Table 3a Primary designated function cold put only production,conservation anda social services and unknown, because all forestes havemultiple use and all forests protect soli and water. DeleteTable 3b - Specialdesignation and management categories Table 4a - It is very difficult todistinguish between primary forests and naturally regenerated forests in tropicalforests. Where the forest is naturally regenerating ther is not introduced species.Therefore the item " ...of which of introduced species" should be deleted. Table4b - delete bamboo Table 5 - the data are very difficult. This tabble sholud bedetete. We only know the area of planted forests. Delete table 6b and 6c Table9a - I suggest that items ... of witch ...are removed and put fire in protected areasTable T10 should be deleted. Table T11 should use U.S. dollars Table T12should use U.S. dollars Table T13 should remove ... of witch.... Table T17 shouldbe deleted because it is very difficult to distinguish the resources devoted toforestry and other areas related to environment

Apr 26, 2012 11:48 AM

7 Reports for different themes and/or users. Apr 26, 2012 6:07 AM

8 Further analysis on the key themes. More regional analysis. Improving the FAOwebsite

Apr 25, 2012 10:05 PM

9 FAO's positive and leading initiative would be highly welcomed. Apr 25, 2012 6:58 PM

10 thanks Apr 25, 2012 12:36 AM


1 of 18

Enquête auprès des utilisateurs et utilisateurs

potentiels - Evaluation des ressources for

1. 1. Avez-vous déjà utilisé l’Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Oui 66.7% 2

Non (si non, allez à la question 11) 33.3% 1

answered question 3

skipped question 0

2. 2. Comment évalueriez-vous la fiabilité générale des données de l’Evaluation des

ressources forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellente 50.0% 1

Bonne 50.0% 1

Acceptable 0.0% 0

Pauvre 0.0% 0

Pas d’avis 0.0% 0

answered question 2

skipped question 1


2 of 18

3. 3. Qu’est ce que vous valorisez le plus dans l’Evaluation des ressources forestières

(FRA)? (Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Crédibilité des données 100.0% 2

Les rapports nationaux 50.0% 1

La portée mondiale de

l’information100.0% 2

Cohérence des variables clés au fil

du temps50.0% 1

Utilité de l’information pour

contribuer à l’élaboration des

politiques

100.0% 2


contribuer à la prise de décisions

pour l’investissement

0.0% 0

Autre (veuillez précisez) 0

answered question 2

skipped question 1


3 of 18

4. 4. Comment avez-vous utilisé l'Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA)?

(Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Une source de données pour la

recherche ou la publication50.0% 1

Informer sur le développement

des politiques100.0% 2

Soutenir le plaidoyer/défense

d’intérêts50.0% 1

Informer sur les décisions

d'investissement ou d'affaires 0.0% 0

Contribuer à du matériel didactique 0.0% 0

Reportages à travers les medias 0.0% 0

Autre (veuillez préciser) 0

answered question 2

skipped question 1


4 of 18

5. 5. Comment évalueriez-vous la facilité d'utilisation de l'Évaluation des ressources

forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Très facile 0.0% 0

Acceptable 100.0% 2

Difficile 0.0% 0

Très difficile 0.0% 0

Avez-vous des suggestions pour rendre le FRA plus facile à utiliser?

1

answered question 2

skipped question 1


5 of 18

6. 6. À quelle fréquence utilisez-vous les informations de l’Evaluation mondiale des

ressources forestiers (FRA) dans les formats listés ci-dessous?

Très

souventSouvent Rarement Jamais

Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2

Rapport principal 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Base de données du FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Rapports nationaux 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Résultats principaux (Key findings) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Les tableaux mondiaux (Global

tables)0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Matériel pédagogique (Natural


CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

answered question 2

skipped question 1


6 of 18

7. 7. Comment évalueriez-vous l’utilité actuelle de chaque format de l’Evaluation des


Très bonne Bonne MauvaiseTrès

mauvaise

Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1




Résultats principaux 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Les tableaux mondiaux 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



CD-ROM 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

answered question 2

skipped question 1


7 of 18

8. 8. Y a-t-il d'autres formats pour le contenu de l’Évaluation des ressources forestières

(FRA) que vous valoriseriez? (Cochez toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Amélioration de la base de

données100.0% 2

Document technique de

synthèse plus court100.0% 2

Rapports sur des sujets

spécifiques100.0% 2

Les rapports régionaux 100.0% 2

Les médias sociaux (par exemple

Twitter, Wikis, Facebook, LinkedIn) 0.0% 0

Webinaires 0.0% 0

Vidéos 50.0% 1

Présentations 50.0% 1

Autre (veuillez préciser)

1

answered question 2

skipped question 1


8 of 18

9. 9. Comment classeriez-vous les sujets suivants de l’Evaluation des ressources

forestières 2010 par ordre d'importance? (Choisissez votre top 3 et classez-les svp en tant

que # 1, # 2 et # 3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count

Étendue des ressources

forestières (superficie forestière,

matériel sur pied, biomasse,

carbone, caractéristiques)

3.00 6 2

La diversité biologique (forêt

primaire, conservation, aires

protégées, composition)

2.50 5 2

La santé et vitalité des forêts

(incendies, insectes, maladies)

2.00 4 2

Fonctions de production des forêts

(production, forêts plantées,

prélèvement, boisement et

reboisement)

2.00 4 2

Fonctions de protection des forêts

(forêts protectrices)

2.00 4 2

Fonctions socio-économiques

2.50 5 2

Le cadre juridique, politique et

institutionnel (cadre politique et

juridique, le cadre institutionnel,

l’éducation et la recherche)

2.50 5 2

answered question 2

skipped question 1


9 of 18

10. 10. Quels sujets aimeriez-vous voir plus développés ou moins développés dans le FRA

2015?

PlusPas de

changementMoins Sans opinion

Response

Count

Forêt naturelle 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Forêts plantées 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Biodiversité / conservation 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Matériel sur pied (volume,

biomasse, carbone)50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2

La production forestière 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

La santé des forêts 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

L'emploi et les moyens de

subsistance50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Progrès vers la gestion durable des

forêts50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Politique et législation 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2


1

answered question 2

skipped question 1


10 of 18

11. 11. Quels sont les obstacles principaux ou les barrières que vous rencontrez pour

utiliser l’Évaluation des ressources forestières (FRA)? (Cochez toutes les réponses qui

s'appliquent)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Je n’étais pas au courant de la

ressource (FRA)33.3% 1

Le Site web est trop difficile à

utiliser 0.0% 0

Il est difficile de trouver

l'information dans le rapport 0.0% 0

Les données sont fragmentées

dans le rapport principal33.3% 1

Certaines données ne sont pas

crédibles 0.0% 0

La base de données est difficile à

utiliser33.3% 1

Les données sont trop générales

et pas assez spécifiques66.7% 2

Je suis préoccupé par la fiabilité

des données 0.0% 0

Je n'ai pas de barrières ou

d'obstacles à l'utilisation du FRA 0.0% 0


answered question 3

skipped question 0


11 of 18

12. 12. Quels sujets liés à la forêt vous intéressent le plus? (sélectionnez tout ce qui

s'applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Superficie des forêts naturelles et

leurs caractéristiques66.7% 2

Superficie des forêts plantées et


Tendances historiques de la

superficie forestière100.0% 3

Biodiversité / conservation 66.7% 2

Taux de déforestation / dégradation 66.7% 2

Volume, biomasse, carbone 66.7% 2

Production forestière 66.7% 2

Santé des forêts 66.7% 2

Emploi et moyens de subsistance 33.3% 1

Progrès vers la gestion durable

des forêts100.0% 3

Politique et législation 100.0% 3

Projections des changements

futurs des forêts100.0% 3


answered question 3

skipped question 0


12 of 18

13. 13. Pour qui travaillez-vous actuellement?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Gouvernement ou organisation

du secteur public100.0% 3

Organisation non gouvernementale 0.0% 0

Organisation intergouvernementale 0.0% 0

Enseignement ou recherche (y

compris les étudiants) 0.0% 0

Entreprise privée 0.0% 0

Médias 0.0% 0


answered question 3

skipped question 0


13 of 18

14. 14. Depuis quelle région travaillez-vous?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Afrique Orientale et Australe 0.0% 0

Afrique du Nord 33.3% 1

Afrique Occidentale et Centrale 66.7% 2

Asie de l'Est 0.0% 0

Asie du Sud et Asie du Sud-est 0.0% 0

Asie Occidentale et Centrale 0.0% 0

Europe 0.0% 0

Caraïbes 0.0% 0

Amérique Centrale 0.0% 0

Amérique du Nord 0.0% 0

Océanie 0.0% 0

Amérique du Sud 0.0% 0

Mondial 0.0% 0

answered question 3

skipped question 0

15. 15. Si vous pouviez changer une chose au sujet de l’Evaluation des ressources

forestières (FRA), quelle serait-elle?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 1


14 of 18

16. 16. Avez-vous des suggestions pour améliorer le contenu, le format, la qualité ou la

promotion de la prochaine Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA 2015)?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 1


15 of 18

Page 3, Q4. 5. Comment évalueriez-vous la facilité d'utilisation de l'Évaluation des ressources forestières (FRA)?

1 regrouper davantage les informations; notamment les tableaux ou présenter destableaux synoptiques pays par pays.

Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

Page 3, Q7. 8. Y a-t-il d'autres formats pour le contenu de l’Évaluation des ressources forestières (FRA) que vousvaloriseriez?(Cochez toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent)

1 tableau global synthétique pour chaque pays Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM


17 of 18

Page 3, Q8. 9. Comment classeriez-vous les sujets suivants de l’Evaluation des ressources forestières 2010 parordre d'importance?(Choisissez votre top 3 et classez-les svp en tant que # 1, # 2 et # 3)

Étendue des ressources forestières (superficie forestière, matériel sur pied, biomasse, carbone, caractéristiques)

1 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 3 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

La diversité biologique (forêt primaire, conservation, aires protégées, composition)

1 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 2 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

La santé et vitalité des forêts (incendies, insectes, maladies)

1 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 1 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

Fonctions de production des forêts (production, forêts plantées, prélèvement, boisement et reboisement)

1 2 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 2 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

Fonctions de protection des forêts (forêts protectrices)

1 2 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 2 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM


1 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 2 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

Le cadre juridique, politique et institutionnel (cadre politique et juridique, le cadre institutionnel, l’éducation et larecherche)

1 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

2 2 Apr 24, 2012 9:47 AM

Page 3, Q9. 10. Quels sujets aimeriez-vous voir plus développés ou moins développés dans le FRA 2015?

1 watershed management and desertification control hangement climatique Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM


18 of 18

Page 3, Q14. 15. Si vous pouviez changer une chose au sujet de l’Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA),quelle serait-elle?

1 - May 5, 2012 7:48 AM

2 Definitions trop longues et parfois ambigues Beaucoup de tableaux et donnéeséparpillées

Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM

Page 3, Q15. 16. Avez-vous des suggestions pour améliorer le contenu, le format, la qualité ou la promotion de laprochaine Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA 2015)?

1 - May 5, 2012 7:48 AM

2 Simplifier les définitions Présenter l'ensemble des données FRA de chaque paysdans un tableau de synthése Focaliser davantage sur les aspects institutionnelset de bonne gouvernance des ressources forestières

Apr 26, 2012 2:39 PM


1 of 17

Encuesta a los usuarios y a los usuarios

potenciales - Evaluación de los Recursos

Forestales

1. 1. Ha usado la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Si 66.7% 4

No (si no ha usado, por favor

seguir a la pregunta 11)33.3% 2

answered question 6

skipped question 0

2. 2. Como calificaría la confiabilidad en general de los datos de la Evaluación de los

Recursos Forestales Mundiales (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excelente 0.0% 0

Buena 100.0% 4

Mediana 0.0% 0

Pobre 0.0% 0

Sin opinión 0.0% 0

answered question 4

skipped question 2


2 of 17

3. 3. Que es lo que más valora de la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales

(FRA)? (Seleccione todas las que correspoden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Credibilidad de los datos 25.0% 1

Reportes nacionales 50.0% 2

Aspecto global de la información 75.0% 3

Consistencia en el tiempo de

variables claves25.0% 1

Utilidad de la información para

contribuir a la formulación de

políticas

25.0% 1


contribuir a decisiones para invertir

o sobre negocios

0.0% 0

Otros (Por favor especificar) 0

answered question 4

skipped question 2


3 of 17

4. 4. Como ha usado la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales (FRA)?

(Seleccione todas las que correspoden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Como fuente de información

para investigación o publicación100.0% 4

Para informar sobre desarrollo de

políticas50.0% 2

Para apoyar el trabajo de

abogacía /defensa de intereses/

asesoria

0.0% 0

Para informar sobre decisiones

para invertir o hacer negocios25.0% 1

Para contribuir a materiales

educativos50.0% 2

Para noticias en los medios de

comunicación 0.0% 0


answered question 4

skipped question 2


4 of 17

5. 5. Como evaluaría la facilidad de la utilización de la Evaluación de los Recursos

Forestales Mundiales (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Muy facil 25.0% 1

Moderadamente facil 75.0% 3

Dificil 0.0% 0

Muy dificil 0.0% 0

Que sugeriría para hacer el FRA mas fácil de usar? 0

answered question 4

skipped question 2


5 of 17

6. 6. Que tan frecuente usa usted la información del FRA en los formatos siguientes?

Muy

seguidoSeguido Rara vez Nunca

No es

conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 4

Informe principal 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

Base de datos del FRA 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Informes nacionales 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Resultados principales 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 4

Tablas globales (global tables) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 4

Material educativo (Natural Inquirer,

the world’s forests edition)0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 3

CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 3

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 2



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1

answered question 4

skipped question 2


6 of 17

7. 7. Como evaluaría usted la utilidad actual de cada uno de los siguientes formatos del

FRA?

Muy buena Buena Pobre Muy pobreNo es

conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 3






FRA Newsletter 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 3



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 3

answered question 3

skipped question 3


7 of 17

8. 8. Hay otros formatos para el contenido de la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales

(FRA) que usted valoraría? (Seleccione todas las que corresponden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Base de datos mejorada 75.0% 3

Síntesis de documentos técnicos

más cortas/resumidas100.0% 4

Informes sobre tópicos específicos 50.0% 2

Informes regionales 50.0% 2

Medios de comunicación (ejemplo:

Twitter, Wikis, Facebook, LinkedIn)50.0% 2

Webinars 0.0% 0

Videos 50.0% 2

Presentaciones 50.0% 2


answered question 4

skipped question 2


8 of 17

9. 9. Como ordenaría según la importancia para usted los siguientes tópicos de la

Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales 2010 (FRA 2010)? (Seleccione los 3 más

importantes y ordénelos por favor como 1, 2 y 3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count

Tópico del FRA 2010

2.50 5 2

Extensión de recursos forestales

(Area de bosques, existencias en

formación, biomasa, carbono,

características)

1.50 6 4

Diversidad biológica (bosques

primarios, conservación, áreas

protegidas, composición)

2.25 9 4

Salud y vitalidad de los bosques

(Incendios, insectos,

enfermedades)

4.00 8 2

Funciones productivas de los

recursos forestales (producción,

plantaciones forestales, extracción

de productos madereros,

forestación y reforestación)

3.67 11 3

Funciones protectoras de los

recursos forestales (funciones de

protección)

3.33 10 3

Funciones socio-económicas

4.50 9 2

Marco institucional, jurídico y

normativo (Marco institucional y

jurídico, educación e

investigación)

5.00 10 2

answered question 4


9 of 17

skipped question 2

10. 10. Que tópicos le gustaría ver más desarrollados y cuales menos en el FRA 2015?

Mas Sin cambios Menos Sin opiniónResponse

Count

Bosques naturales 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Bosques plantados 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Biodiversidad/conservación 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Existencias en formación

(volumen, biomasa, carbono)50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Producción de los bosques 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Salud de los bosques 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Empleo y medios de subsistencia 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Progreso hacia la odenación

forestal sostenible75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 4

Política y legislación 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2


answered question 4

skipped question 2


10 of 17

11. 11. Cuales son las principales barreras u obstáculos que usted encuentra al usar la

Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales (FRA)? (Seleccione todas las que

corresponden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

No sabia de la existencia del FRA 16.7% 1

Sitio Web muy difícil de

navegar/encontrar lo que se

busca

33.3% 2

Es difícil encontrar la información

en el Informe principal16.7% 1

Los datos estan fragmentados en

el Informe principal16.7% 1

Algunos datos no son credibles 16.7% 1

La base de datos es muy difícil de

usar 0.0% 0

Los datos son muy generales y

no lo suficientemente

específicos

33.3% 2

Me preocupa la confiabilidad de los

datos16.7% 1

No tengo barreras ni obstáculos

para usar el FRA16.7% 1


answered question 6

skipped question 0


11 of 17

12. 12. En cuales temas relacionados con los bosques esta usted mas interesado/a?

(seleccione todas las que corresponden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Area de bosques naturales y sus

características66.7% 4

Bosques plantados y sus


Tendencias históricas del área de

bosques16.7% 1

Biodiversidad/conservación 83.3% 5

Tasa de deforestación/degradación 66.7% 4

Volumen, biomasa, carbono 50.0% 3

Producción de los bosques 33.3% 2

Salud de los bosques 50.0% 3

Empleo y medios de subsistencia 16.7% 1

Progreso hacia la ordenación

forestal sostenible33.3% 2

Política y legislación 16.7% 1

Projecciones de cambios futuros en

el bosque50.0% 3


answered question 6

skipped question 0


12 of 17

13. 13. Para quien trabaja usted actualmente?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Gobierno u

organización/organismo

pública/o

100.0% 6

Organización no gubernamental 0.0% 0

Organización Intergubernamental 0.0% 0

Institución académica o de

investigación (incluye estudiantes) 0.0% 0

Empresa privada 0.0% 0

Medios de comunicación 0.0% 0


answered question 6

skipped question 0


13 of 17

14. 14. Desde cual región trabaja usted?/(donde está basado para hacer su trabajo?)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Africa del Este y del Sur 0.0% 0

Africa del Norte 0.0% 0

Africa Central y del Oeste 0.0% 0

Asia del Este 0.0% 0

Asia del Sur y del Sur-este 0.0% 0

Asia del Oeste y Central 0.0% 0

Europa 0.0% 0

Caribe 0.0% 0

América Central 0.0% 0

América del Norte 16.7% 1

Oceanía 0.0% 0

América del Sur 83.3% 5

A nivel mundial/ global 0.0% 0

answered question 6

skipped question 0

15. 15. Si usted pudiera cambiar una cosa de la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales

Mundiales (FRA), cual seria?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 4


14 of 17

16. 16. Tiene usted alguna sugerencia para mejorar el contenido, el formato, la calidad o la

promoción del próximo FRA (FRA 2015)?

Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 5


16 of 17

Page 3, Q8. 9. Como ordenaría según la importancia para usted los siguientes tópicos de la Evaluación de losRecursos Forestales Mundiales 2010 (FRA 2010)?(Seleccione los 3 más importantes y ordénelos por favor como 1, 2 y 3)


1 2 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

3 3 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

Extensión de recursos forestales (Area de bosques, existencias en formación, biomasa, carbono, características)

1 1 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

2 1 Apr 26, 2012 5:12 AM

3 3 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

4 1 Apr 24, 2012 11:50 AM

Diversidad biológica (bosques primarios, conservación, áreas protegidas, composición)

1 3 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

2 2 Apr 26, 2012 5:12 AM

3 2 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

4 2 Apr 24, 2012 11:50 AM

Salud y vitalidad de los bosques (Incendios, insectos, enfermedades)

1 6 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

3 2 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

Funciones productivas de los recursos forestales (producción, plantaciones forestales, extracción de productosmadereros, forestación y reforestación)

1 5 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

2 3 Apr 26, 2012 5:12 AM

3 3 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

Funciones protectoras de los recursos forestales (funciones de protección)

1 4 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

3 3 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

4 3 Apr 24, 2012 11:50 AM



17 of 17


1 7 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

3 2 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

Marco institucional, jurídico y normativo (Marco institucional y jurídico, educación e investigación)

1 8 May 9, 2012 5:37 AM

3 2 Apr 25, 2012 4:41 PM

Page 3, Q14. 15. Si usted pudiera cambiar una cosa de la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales(FRA), cual seria?

1 Mas analisis Apr 26, 2012 5:12 AM

2 AMPLIAR LOS ANALISIS Apr 24, 2012 11:50 AM

Page 3, Q15. 16. Tiene usted alguna sugerencia para mejorar el contenido, el formato, la calidad o la promocióndel próximo FRA (FRA 2015)?

1 No Apr 26, 2012 5:12 AM


1 of 16




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 80.0% 4


answered question 5

skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 0.0% 0

Good 50.0% 2

Fair 0.0% 0

Poor 50.0% 2

No opinion 0.0% 0

answered question 4

skipped question 1

Summary by Audience - Non-gov't

2 of 16


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count





time25.0% 1





business decisions

0.0% 0


answered question 4

skipped question 1


3 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication75.0% 3




decisions 0.0% 0




answered question 4

skipped question 1


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 25.0% 1


Difficult 0.0% 0


No opinion 25.0% 1

How would you suggest making the FRA easier to use? 0

answered question 4

skipped question 1


4 of 16




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Main Report 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 4

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 4

Key Findings 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

Global Tables 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 4



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4

answered question 4

skipped question 1


5 of 16


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 4

Main Report 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 4

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 4

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 4

Key Findings 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 4

Global Tables 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 4

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 4



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 4

answered question 4

skipped question 1


6 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document50.0% 2




Facebook, LinkedIn) 0.0% 0

Webinars 0.0% 0

Videos 0.0% 0



answered question 4

skipped question 1


7 of 16



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




1.33 4 3

Biological diversity (primary

forest, conservation, protected

areas, composition)

3.00 6 2


insects, diseases) 0.00 0 0




reforestation)

1.67 5 3


(protective forests) 0.00 0 0


1.00 1 1





2.67 8 3

answered question 4

skipped question 1


8 of 16



Count

Natural forest 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3

Planted forest 33.3% (1) 66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3



carbon)33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 3


Forest health 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3



management66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 3



1

answered question 3

skipped question 2


9 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count




in the report 0.0% 0


Report 0.0% 0




enough20.0% 1




using the FRA 0.0% 0


1

answered question 5

skipped question 0


10 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count













management40.0% 2



forests60.0% 3


answered question 5

skipped question 0


11 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0






Media 0.0% 0


answered question 5

skipped question 0


12 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 0.0% 0



Europe 0.0% 0

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 0.0% 0


Global 40.0% 2

answered question 5

skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 3


13 of 16



Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 4


15 of 16



1 1 Apr 27, 2012 2:28 PM

3 1 Apr 25, 2012 10:45 AM

4 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:57 AM


1 3 Apr 27, 2012 2:28 PM

3 3 Apr 25, 2012 10:45 AM



1 2 Apr 27, 2012 2:28 PM

2 2 Apr 26, 2012 12:04 PM

4 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:57 AM



2 1 Apr 26, 2012 12:04 PM


2 3 Apr 26, 2012 12:04 PM

3 2 Apr 25, 2012 10:45 AM

4 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:57 AM

Page 3, Q9. 10. What topics would you like to see more or less of in FRA 2015?

1 backwards compatible historical forest data, which would be necessary to e.g.inform the REDD process.

Apr 27, 2012 2:28 PM


1 More the reliability of the previous FRA versions than the current one, Apr 27, 2012 2:28 PM


16 of 16



1 More socio economic data on forest relaince of local people Apr 26, 2012 12:04 PM

2 country reports especially from developing countries should be generated fromsurveys or data should be verified.

Apr 25, 2012 12:57 AM


1 include carbon stocks but also geo-reference the data showing both spatial andtemporal trends

Apr 25, 2012 12:57 AM



1 of 14




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Oui 100.0% 1


answered question 1

skipped question 0



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellente 0.0% 0

Bonne 0.0% 0

Acceptable 100.0% 1

Pauvre 0.0% 0

Pas d’avis 0.0% 0

answered question 1

skipped question 0


2 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count






du temps 0.0% 0



politiques

0.0% 0




0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 0


3 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count



Informer sur le développement des

politiques 0.0% 0


d’intérêts 0.0% 0






answered question 1

skipped question 0


forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Très facile 100.0% 1

Acceptable 0.0% 0

Difficile 0.0% 0


Avez- 0

answered question 1

skipped question 0


4 of 14



Très


Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1






tables)0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


5 of 14




mauvaise

Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1






Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


6 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count


données100.0% 1

Document technique de synthèse

plus court 0.0% 0


spécifiques 0.0% 0




Webinaires 0.0% 0

Vidéos 0.0% 0



answered question 1

skipped question 0


7 of 14



que # 1, # 2 et # 3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count

Étendue des ressources forestières

(superficie forestière, matériel sur

pied, biomasse, carbone,

caractéristiques)

1.00 1 1




2.00 2 1


(incendies, insectes, maladies)

3.00 3 1




reboisement)

1.00 1 1


(forêts protectrices)

1.00 1 1


2.00 2 1



juridique, le cadre

institutionnel, l’éducation et la

recherche)

3.00 3 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


8 of 14


2015?

PlusPas de


Response

Count

Forêt naturelle 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Forêts plantées 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1







subsistance0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1


forêts0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



answered question 1

skipped question 0


9 of 14



s'appliquent)

Response

Percent

Response

Count




utiliser 0.0% 0




dans le rapport principal 0.0% 0


crédibles 0.0% 0


utiliser 0.0% 0

Les données sont trop générales et

pas assez spécifiques 0.0% 0


des données100.0% 1




answered question 1

skipped question 0


10 of 14


s'applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Superficie des forêts naturelles

et leurs caractéristiques100.0% 1




superficie forestière 0.0% 0


Taux de déforestation /

dégradation100.0% 1






forêts 0.0% 0



futurs des forêts 0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 0


11 of 14


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Gouvernement ou organisation du

secteur public 0.0% 0

Organisation non

gouvernementale100.0% 1





Médias 0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 0


12 of 14


Response

Percent

Response

Count







Europe 0.0% 0

Caraïbes 0.0% 0



Océanie 0.0% 0


Mondial 0.0% 0

answered question 1

skipped question 0



Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


13 of 14



Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


14 of 14



1 1 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 2 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 3 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 1 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 1 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 2 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 3 Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 Production Forestière Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 NON Apr 29, 2012 6:56 AM


1 of 16



Forestales


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Si 50.0% 2



answered question 4

skipped question 0



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excelente 50.0% 1

Buena 50.0% 1

Mediana 0.0% 0

Pobre 0.0% 0

Sin opinión 0.0% 0

answered question 2

skipped question 2


2 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count





variables claves 0.0% 0



políticas

50.0% 1



o sobre negocios

0.0% 0


answered question 2

skipped question 2


3 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Como fuente de información para

investigación o publicación50.0% 1


políticas 0.0% 0



asesoria

0.0% 0


para invertir o hacer negocios 0.0% 0


educativos100.0% 2




answered question 2

skipped question 2


4 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Muy facil 50.0% 1


Dificil 0.0% 0

Muy dificil 0.0% 0


answered question 2

skipped question 2


5 of 16


Muy


No es

conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2






FRA Newsletter 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 2

FRA Newsletter 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2

answered question 2

skipped question 2


6 of 16


FRA?


conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2






FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2

answered question 2

skipped question 2


7 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count



más cortas/resumidas50.0% 1

Informes sobre tópicos

específicos100.0% 2


Medios de comunicación

(ejemplo: Twitter, Wikis,

Facebook, LinkedIn)

100.0% 2

Webinars 50.0% 1

Videos 100.0% 2



answered question 2

skipped question 2


8 of 16




Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count


1.00 1 1




características)

2.50 5 2




0.00 0 0



enfermedades)

0.00 0 0



plantaciones forestales,

extracción de productos

madereros, forestación y

reforestación)

2.50 5 2


recursos forestales (funciones de

protección)

0.00 0 0


1.00 1 1



jurídico, educación e investigación)

0.00 0 0

answered question 2

skipped question 2


9 of 16



Count













answered question 2

skipped question 2


10 of 16



corresponden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

No sabia de la existencia del

FRA50.0% 2


navegar/encontrar lo que se busca 0.0% 0


en el Informe principal 0.0% 0




La base de datos es muy difícil

de usar50.0% 2

Los datos son muy generales y no

lo suficientemente específicos 0.0% 0


datos25.0% 1




answered question 4

skipped question 0


11 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count






bosques50.0% 2


Tasa de deforestación/degradación 75.0% 3









el bosque75.0% 3


answered question 4

skipped question 0


12 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Gobierno u organización/organismo

pública/o 0.0% 0




investigación (incluye estudiantes) 0.0% 0



Otros (Por favor especificar)

1

answered question 4

skipped question 0


13 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count







Europa 0.0% 0

Caribe 0.0% 0



Oceanía 0.0% 0



answered question 4

skipped question 0



Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 2


14 of 16



Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 2


15 of 16



1 1 May 4, 2012 10:29 AM


1 2 May 4, 2012 10:29 AM

2 3 Apr 26, 2012 4:16 AM




1 3 May 4, 2012 10:29 AM

2 2 Apr 26, 2012 4:16 AM



2 1 Apr 26, 2012 4:16 AM


Page 3, Q12. 13. Para quien trabaja usted actualmente?

1 en forma independiente, como ingeniero forestal Apr 26, 2012 2:54 PM


1 Disponibilidad, de informacion y algoritmos para ser utilizados de forma regional,que pueda ser compartida o retroalimente a FRA

May 4, 2012 10:29 AM

2 necesito mayor informacion para contestar esta pregunta Apr 26, 2012 2:54 PM


16 of 16


1 Que se haga participe mas expertos nacionales en la elaboración de informes yreportes para que FRA los centralice.

May 4, 2012 10:29 AM

2 si, hacer una introduccion bien ilustrada al tema de discusion, gracias Apr 26, 2012 2:54 PM


1 of 18




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 81.8% 9



skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 0.0% 0

Good 44.4% 4

Fair 33.3% 3

Poor 22.2% 2

No opinion 0.0% 0

answered question 9

skipped question 2

Summary by Audience - Private Company

2 of 18


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count





time55.6% 5





business decisions

22.2% 2


answered question 9

skipped question 2


3 of 18


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication77.8% 7




decisions55.6% 5




2

answered question 9

skipped question 2


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 33.3% 3


Difficult 11.1% 1


No opinion 0.0% 0


answered question 9

skipped question 2


4 of 18




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 62.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8

Main Report 11.1% (1) 44.4% (4) 33.3% (3) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 9

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 8

Country Reports 22.2% (2) 11.1% (1) 66.7% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 9

Key Findings 11.1% (1) 22.2% (2) 33.3% (3) 33.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 9

Global Tables 11.1% (1) 33.3% (3) 55.6% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 9

FRA Newsletter 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 37.5% (3) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 8



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 8

answered question 9

skipped question 2


5 of 18


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 85.7% (6) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 7

Main Report 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 8

FRA Database 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 8

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8

Key Findings 0.0% (0) 28.6% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 71.4% (5) 7

Global Tables 12.5% (1) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 8

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 28.6% (2) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 57.1% (4) 7



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 57.1% (4) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 28.6% (2) 7

answered question 8

skipped question 3


6 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document37.5% 3





Webinars 12.5% 1

Videos 0.0% 0



1

answered question 8

skipped question 3


7 of 18



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




1.50 12 8



composition)

3.00 18 6


insects, diseases)

6.00 12 2




reforestation)

1.89 17 9



4.33 13 3


4.33 13 3





3.33 10 3

answered question 9

skipped question 2


8 of 18



Count

Natural forest 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8

Planted forest 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8



carbon)66.7% (6) 33.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 9


Forest health 37.5% (3) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 8



management100.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 8



1

answered question 9

skipped question 2


9 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count






Report27.3% 3




enough36.4% 4







skipped question 0


10 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count













management45.5% 5



forests27.3% 3



skipped question 0


11 of 18


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0






Media 0.0% 0


1


skipped question 0


12 of 18


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 0.0% 0



Europe 36.4% 4

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 0.0% 0


Global 9.1% 1


skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

3

answered question 3

skipped question 8


13 of 18



Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 9


14 of 18

Page 3, Q3. 4. How have you used the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)?(Select all that apply)

1 Project context develpment May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 determine sustainability of biomass use in countries in carbon projects May 4, 2012 6:51 AM

Page 3, Q7. 8. Are there other formats for Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) content that you would value?(Check all that apply)

1 GIS & remote sensing results May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


16 of 18



1 2 May 9, 2012 1:07 PM

2 1 May 8, 2012 6:53 AM

3 1 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

4 1 May 4, 2012 6:51 AM

5 2 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

6 3 Apr 27, 2012 3:56 AM

8 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:58 AM

9 1 Apr 24, 2012 10:52 PM


2 3 May 8, 2012 6:53 AM

3 6 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

4 2 May 4, 2012 6:51 AM

5 4 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

7 1 Apr 25, 2012 1:05 AM

8 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:58 AM


3 7 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

5 5 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM


1 1 May 9, 2012 1:07 PM

2 2 May 8, 2012 6:53 AM

3 2 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

4 3 May 4, 2012 6:51 AM

5 1 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

6 1 Apr 27, 2012 3:56 AM


17 of 18


7 2 Apr 25, 2012 1:05 AM

8 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:58 AM

9 2 Apr 24, 2012 10:52 PM


1 3 May 9, 2012 1:07 PM

3 3 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

5 7 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM


3 4 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

5 6 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

7 3 Apr 25, 2012 1:05 AM


3 5 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

5 3 Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

6 2 Apr 27, 2012 3:56 AM


1 Globally standardized forest resource mapping via remote sensing classified viabiomass (see WHRC Tropical Forest Biomass database)

May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

Page 3, Q12. 13. Who do you currently work for?

1 Consultant to other private, public and NGO actors on A/R and REDD May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


18 of 18



May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 More focus on sustainable production and forecast Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM

3 Specify the accuracy of forest resources especially for forest area. Apr 25, 2012 12:58 AM



May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 There should be an assessment of the harvesting conditions in the forests; fromthe accessibility the world forests are very different without taking any other costfactor into account

Apr 29, 2012 10:46 PM


1 of 16




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Oui 50.0% 1

Non (si non, allez à la question

11)50.0% 1

answered question 2

skipped question 0



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellente 0.0% 0

Bonne 0.0% 0

Acceptable 0.0% 0

Pauvre 100.0% 1

Pas d’avis 0.0% 0

answered question 1

skipped question 1


2 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count






du temps 0.0% 0



politiques

0.0% 0




0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 1


3 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count


recherche ou la publication 0.0% 0


politiques 0.0% 0




d'investissement ou d'affaires100.0% 1




1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


4 of 16


forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Très facile 0.0% 0

Acceptable 100.0% 1

Difficile 0.0% 0



1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


5 of 16



Très


Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0






tables)0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


6 of 16




mauvaise

Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1






Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


7 of 16



Response

Percent

Response

Count


données100.0% 1


plus court 0.0% 0


spécifiques100.0% 1




Webinaires 0.0% 0

Vidéos 100.0% 1



answered question 1

skipped question 1


8 of 16



que # 1, # 2 et # 3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




caractéristiques)

1.00 1 1




3.00 3 1


(incendies, insectes, maladies) 0.00 0 0




reboisement)

2.00 2 1


(forêts protectrices) 0.00 0 0

Fonctions socio-économiques 0.00 0 0



juridique, le cadre institutionnel,

l’éducation et la recherche)

0.00 0 0

answered question 1

skipped question 1


9 of 16


2015?

PlusPas de


Response

Count

Forêt naturelle 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Forêts plantées 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1







subsistance0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1


forêts100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



answered question 1

skipped question 1


10 of 16



s'appliquent)

Response

Percent

Response

Count


ressource (FRA) 0.0% 0


utiliser 0.0% 0




dans le rapport principal 0.0% 0


crédibles50.0% 1


utiliser 0.0% 0

Les données sont trop générales

et pas assez spécifiques50.0% 1


des données50.0% 1


d'obstacles à l'utilisation du FRA50.0% 1


answered question 2

skipped question 0


11 of 16


s'applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Superficie des forêts naturelles et

leurs caractéristiques 0.0% 0


leurs caractéristiques 0.0% 0




Taux de déforestation / dégradation 50.0% 1






forêts50.0% 1





answered question 2

skipped question 0


12 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count








Médias 0.0% 0


answered question 2

skipped question 0


13 of 16


Response

Percent

Response

Count







Europe 100.0% 2

Caraïbes 0.0% 0



Océanie 0.0% 0


Mondial 0.0% 0

answered question 2

skipped question 0



Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 0


14 of 16



Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


15 of 16

Page 3, Q3. 4. Comment avez-vous utilisé l'Evaluation des ressources forestières (FRA)?(Sélectionnez tout ce qui s’applique)

1 Je me suis appuyée sur le FRA pour définir des politiques d'achats responsablesde papier en évitant les pays à risque de déforestation

May 4, 2012 6:30 AM


1 Mieux expliquer les différences qui apparaissent d'une parution à une autre (etqui sont parfois appliquées de façon rétroactives)

May 4, 2012 6:30 AM



1 1 May 4, 2012 6:30 AM


1 3 May 4, 2012 6:30 AM



1 2 May 4, 2012 6:30 AM





1 Explication des différences d'une parution à une autre. Sources des données etinformation sur l'incertitude associée

May 4, 2012 6:30 AM

2 pouvoir superposer les cartes sur un mode multicritères (volume et exploitation,exploitation et destination, exploitation et usage)

May 4, 2012 5:30 AM


16 of 16


1 une mesure de la valeur ajoutée nationale/ exportation serait bien May 4, 2012 5:30 AM


1 of 24




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 75.8% 25



skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 8.0% 2

Good 48.0% 12

Fair 32.0% 8

Poor 4.0% 1

No opinion 8.0% 2


skipped question 8

Summary by Audience - Academic or Research

2 of 24


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count





time36.0% 9





business decisions

0.0% 0


1


skipped question 8


3 of 24


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication84.0% 21




decisions 0.0% 0





skipped question 8


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 32.0% 8


Difficult 4.0% 1


No opinion 4.0% 1


1


skipped question 8


4 of 24




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 56.5% (13) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 23

Main Report 0.0% (0) 66.7% (16) 33.3% (8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 24

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 43.5% (10) 52.2% (12) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 23

Country Reports 4.5% (1) 36.4% (8) 54.5% (12) 4.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 22

Key Findings 12.5% (3) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7) 8.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 24

Global Tables 8.7% (2) 56.5% (13) 30.4% (7) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 23

FRA Newsletter 4.5% (1) 13.6% (3) 40.9% (9) 40.9% (9) 0.0% (0) 22



CD-ROM 4.5% (1) 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 50.0% (11) 9.1% (2) 22


skipped question 8


5 of 24


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 17.4% (4) 56.5% (13) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 23

Main Report 12.0% (3) 84.0% (21) 4.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25

FRA Database 8.7% (2) 73.9% (17) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 23

Country Reports 16.7% (4) 45.8% (11) 20.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (4) 24

Key Findings 8.3% (2) 79.2% (19) 4.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 8.3% (2) 24

Global Tables 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 9.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 4.5% (1) 22

FRA Newsletter 4.5% (1) 36.4% (8) 9.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (11) 22



CD-ROM 17.4% (4) 26.1% (6) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 47.8% (11) 23


skipped question 8


6 of 24



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document38.1% 8





Webinars 14.3% 3

Videos 14.3% 3




skipped question 12


7 of 24



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




1.32 29 22



composition)

2.18 37 17


insects, diseases)

2.29 16 7




reforestation)

2.50 40 16



2.80 14 5


2.90 29 10



framework, institutional

framework, education and

research)

4.40 22 5


skipped question 11


8 of 24



Count

Natural forest 60.9% (14) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 23

Planted forest 65.2% (15) 30.4% (7) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 23



carbon)52.2% (12) 47.8% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 23


Forest health 23.8% (5) 61.9% (13) 9.5% (2) 4.8% (1) 21



management54.5% (12) 27.3% (6) 9.1% (2) 9.1% (2) 22



4


skipped question 8


9 of 24



Response

Percent

Response

Count




in the report9.7% 3


Report22.6% 7




enough12.9% 4






4


skipped question 2


10 of 24



Response

Percent

Response

Count













management36.4% 12



forests42.4% 14


2


skipped question 0


11 of 24


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0




(including students)100.0% 33


Media 0.0% 0


1


skipped question 0


12 of 24


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 15.2% 5



Europe 24.2% 8

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 3.0% 1


Global 0.0% 0


skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

14


skipped question 19


13 of 24



Response

Count

11


skipped question 22


14 of 24


1 Summary tables and overview Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM


1 Systematically May 5, 2012 12:10 AM


16 of 24



1 2 May 5, 2012 2:49 AM

2 2 May 5, 2012 12:10 AM

3 1 May 4, 2012 6:33 AM

4 1 May 3, 2012 9:38 AM

5 1 Apr 30, 2012 7:50 AM

6 1 Apr 30, 2012 12:31 AM

7 1 Apr 29, 2012 5:59 AM

8 1 Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM

9 1 Apr 27, 2012 1:04 AM

10 1 Apr 26, 2012 4:20 AM

11 1 Apr 26, 2012 2:12 AM

12 1 Apr 26, 2012 2:01 AM

13 2 Apr 26, 2012 12:51 AM

14 1 Apr 25, 2012 2:42 PM

15 1 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 1 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 4 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

18 1 Apr 25, 2012 1:22 AM

19 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:48 AM

20 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM

21 1 Apr 24, 2012 8:05 AM

22 1 Apr 24, 2012 8:00 AM


2 1 May 5, 2012 12:10 AM


17 of 24


4 3 May 3, 2012 9:38 AM

5 3 Apr 30, 2012 7:50 AM

6 3 Apr 30, 2012 12:31 AM

7 2 Apr 29, 2012 5:59 AM

8 3 Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM

9 3 Apr 27, 2012 1:04 AM

10 3 Apr 26, 2012 4:20 AM

13 1 Apr 26, 2012 12:51 AM

14 2 Apr 25, 2012 2:42 PM

15 2 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 1 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

18 3 Apr 25, 2012 1:22 AM

20 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM

21 2 Apr 24, 2012 8:05 AM

22 2 Apr 24, 2012 8:00 AM


1 1 May 5, 2012 2:49 AM

13 3 Apr 26, 2012 12:51 AM

15 3 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 2 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

20 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM

21 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:05 AM



18 of 24


2 3 May 5, 2012 12:10 AM

3 2 May 4, 2012 6:33 AM

4 2 May 3, 2012 9:38 AM

5 2 Apr 30, 2012 7:50 AM

6 2 Apr 30, 2012 12:31 AM

8 2 Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM

9 2 Apr 27, 2012 1:04 AM

10 2 Apr 26, 2012 4:20 AM

11 2 Apr 26, 2012 2:12 AM

12 2 Apr 26, 2012 2:01 AM

14 3 Apr 25, 2012 2:42 PM

15 6 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 1 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 5 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

20 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM

22 3 Apr 24, 2012 8:00 AM


12 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:01 AM

15 5 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 3 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

20 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM


1 3 May 5, 2012 2:49 AM

3 3 May 4, 2012 6:33 AM


19 of 24


7 3 Apr 29, 2012 5:59 AM

11 3 Apr 26, 2012 2:12 AM

15 4 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 6 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

18 2 Apr 25, 2012 1:22 AM

19 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:48 AM

20 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM


15 7 Apr 25, 2012 8:58 AM

16 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

17 7 Apr 25, 2012 4:24 AM

19 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:48 AM

20 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:33 AM


1 Climate change May 5, 2012 2:49 AM

2 high steam, coppice and shrub information Apr 30, 2012 7:50 AM

3 Uncertainty is the key omission Apr 27, 2012 9:13 AM

4 forest degradation status Apr 26, 2012 12:51 AM


20 of 24


1 none May 5, 2012 12:10 AM

2 less data on NWFPs which is area of interest Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM

3 I also resist using on line data bases because I'm no computer geek. Apr 26, 2012 5:06 AM

4 Forgot about it (even though I'm listed as a contributor!). Usually I need data formy own country, and it's better to go to the source and get up to date estimates.

Apr 26, 2012 1:10 AM


1 Non wood forest products and livelihoods - national and global trends Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM

2 cultural systems in forests Apr 26, 2012 5:06 AM


1 NGO also Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM


22 of 24


1 no May 5, 2012 12:10 AM

2 More details on the Remote Sensing Survey. May 3, 2012 9:38 AM

3 Make Remote sensing survey continuous activity. Follow up of forest area withthe RSS is good indicator of development towards SFM.

Apr 30, 2012 12:31 AM

4 try to make more detail Apr 29, 2012 5:59 AM

5 Improved data is dependent on the initiative at the country level --incentivize/challenge countries to "compete" to offer robust data on the full rangeof forest use. This data could assist countries in proving the value of forest torural populations, and thus, lead to support (REDD, CC $ etc). Getting a betterhandle on the value of forests for subsistence and local and regional markets fortimber as well as NTFPs will be useful. Minor changes to existing agricultural oremployment census could do this -- sending countries examples of othercountries efforts to capture this data through simple questions would be apractical way to help countries move toward better data collection. Offering anFAO sponsored workshop for technicians responsible for the design of censuswould help -- particularly if multi-country respresentatives are present andchallenged to submit more robust data the next year.

Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM

6 I would like to see it looking at gender and tenure issues seriously Apr 26, 2012 5:06 AM

7 writing style is at times too generic and not very succint. FRA Report could becondensed into more essential information backed up with appendixes inseparate documents or sections. Data reliability issues should be discussedmore openly so that the reader can make more informed decisions.

Apr 26, 2012 2:12 AM

8 Rely less on country reports Apr 26, 2012 2:01 AM

9 Can't comment until I've had a good look at what is there. Apr 26, 2012 1:10 AM

10 Nothing Apr 25, 2012 2:42 PM

11 Include gendered data specifically in human interactions. Apr 25, 2012 12:28 PM

12 Make database available soon, and easy access for community input. Set upcyberinfrastructure for data visualization and community input/assessment ofdata quality

Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM

13 order and subject of presentation Apr 25, 2012 12:48 AM

14 I would like to see more about Mediterranean forests, their changes with timesince start of agricolture, fire effects

Apr 24, 2012 8:05 AM


24 of 24


1 no May 5, 2012 12:10 AM

2 Clear and uniform information on the trend of the change of forest cover,particularly of high-steam forests, coppice forests and shrubs. More informationon the area of natural and planted forests per country. More information onprotected areas needed: information whether protected areas have naturalforests (high-stem/coppice forests), or planted forests and what is the area ofnatural and planted forests within protected areas.

Apr 30, 2012 7:50 AM

3 Please concentrate on developing quality. Less but better. Apr 30, 2012 12:31 AM

4 No Apr 29, 2012 5:59 AM

5 simplicity of format to access data on web--- offer practical means for countriesto capture data - offer concrete examples of countries that are providing rigorousdata. Promotion: media release for the general public to access the site - make itinteresng and accessible enough that teachers, citizens will want to use the site.Consider including a part on emotional connection to forests/trees/ -- whichcountries have schools that use forests as classrooms? that redesign hospitalsto overlook trees due to their recuprative value leading to improved health carecosts... these are financial upsides of trees/forests, also forests in urban areasneed greater attention. I would consider popularizing its use -- so that thegeneral public will be interested to use and access it. In this way, forests willhave a greater public supporting their sustainable use and conservation -- thiscould be one part of the assessment right up front -- the major findings easy tofind which the general public is interested in.

Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM

6 No Apr 26, 2012 5:06 AM

7 Not yet. Apr 26, 2012 1:10 AM

8 need more information to assess biodiversity with land-use change and differentforest managements, e.g forest fragmentation, restoration, and rehabilitation

Apr 26, 2012 12:51 AM

9 Nothing Apr 25, 2012 2:42 PM

10 Does this link up to State of Forest Reports of the countries? Has there beenenough promotions in universities and other related places that would use thesedatas? (For example, can there be a link on the UBC forestry website or in theCommonwealth Forestry Association page)

Apr 25, 2012 12:28 PM

11 Get more community inputs by taking advantage of advancement of geospatialtechnology, the Internet, smart phone and gps camera. Ask for communitycontributions for in-situ data collection, a key factor that limits remote sensingapproach, error and uncertainty analysis.

Apr 25, 2012 7:53 AM


1 of 18



Forestales


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Si 62.5% 5



answered question 8

skipped question 0



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excelente 20.0% 1

Buena 80.0% 4

Mediana 0.0% 0

Pobre 0.0% 0

Sin opinión 0.0% 0

answered question 5

skipped question 3


2 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count





variables claves 0.0% 0



políticas

0.0% 0



o sobre negocios

0.0% 0

Otros (Por favor especificar)

1

answered question 5

skipped question 3


3 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Como fuente de información

para investigación o publicación80.0% 4


políticas 0.0% 0



asesoria

0.0% 0


para invertir o hacer negocios 0.0% 0


educativos60.0% 3




answered question 5

skipped question 3


4 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Muy facil 40.0% 2


Dificil 0.0% 0

Muy dificil 0.0% 0


answered question 5

skipped question 3


5 of 18


Muy


No es

conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 4






FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 4



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 40.0% (2) 20.0% (1) 40.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 5

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 3



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 3

answered question 5

skipped question 3


6 of 18


FRA?


conocido

Response

Count

Sitio Web del FRA 0.0% (0) 80.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (1) 5






FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 4



CD-ROM 20.0% (1) 40.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (2) 5

answered question 5

skipped question 3


7 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count



más cortas/resumidas 0.0% 0

Informes sobre tópicos específicos 50.0% 2


Medios de comunicación (ejemplo:

Twitter, Wikis, Facebook, LinkedIn)25.0% 1

Webinars 25.0% 1

Videos 25.0% 1



answered question 4

skipped question 4


8 of 18




Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count


3.00 3 1




características)

1.00 4 4




2.00 8 4



enfermedades)

3.00 3 1



plantaciones forestales, extracción

de productos madereros,

forestación y reforestación)

2.33 7 3


recursos forestales (funciones

de protección)

3.00 3 1


2.00 2 1



jurídico, educación e investigación)

0.00 0 0

answered question 5

skipped question 3


9 of 18



Count













answered question 5

skipped question 3


10 of 18



corresponden)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

No sabia de la existencia del FRA 12.5% 1


navegar/encontrar lo que se busca 0.0% 0


en el Informe principal12.5% 1




La base de datos es muy difícil de

usar 0.0% 0

Los datos son muy generales y

no lo suficientemente

específicos

50.0% 4


datos12.5% 1




answered question 8

skipped question 0


11 of 18



Response

Percent

Response

Count






bosques50.0% 4


Tasa de

deforestación/degradación75.0% 6









el bosque50.0% 4


answered question 8

skipped question 0


12 of 18


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Gobierno u organización/organismo

pública/o 0.0% 0




investigación (incluye

estudiantes)

100.0% 8




answered question 8

skipped question 0


13 of 18


Response

Percent

Response

Count







Europa 25.0% 2

Caribe 0.0% 0



Oceanía 0.0% 0



answered question 8

skipped question 0



Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 7


14 of 18



Response

Count

3

answered question 3

skipped question 5


15 of 18

Page 3, Q2. 3. Que es lo que más valora de la Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales (FRA)?(Seleccione todas las que correspoden)

1 actualidad en la información Apr 24, 2012 6:58 PM


17 of 18



2 3 Apr 25, 2012 6:48 AM


1 1 Apr 25, 2012 5:35 PM

3 1 Apr 25, 2012 12:30 AM

4 1 Apr 24, 2012 6:58 PM

5 1 Apr 24, 2012 7:59 AM


1 2 Apr 25, 2012 5:35 PM

2 1 Apr 25, 2012 6:48 AM

4 2 Apr 24, 2012 6:58 PM

5 3 Apr 24, 2012 7:59 AM


4 3 Apr 24, 2012 6:58 PM


1 3 Apr 25, 2012 5:35 PM

2 2 Apr 25, 2012 6:48 AM

5 2 Apr 24, 2012 7:59 AM


3 3 Apr 25, 2012 12:30 AM


3 2 Apr 25, 2012 12:30 AM



1 MAyor difusion May 2, 2012 4:37 PM


18 of 18



1 primero conocere esta version May 2, 2012 4:37 PM

2 Facilitar la disponibilidad de los Informes Nacionales que son difícles de acceder Apr 27, 2012 9:19 AM

3 la presentacion es impactante, creo que llama mucho la atención su diseño eimagenes, quizá algo para tyener en cuenta es el acceso directo a laspublicaciones de referencia, si bien es cierto los contenidos son muy buenos,cuando se quiere profundizar en algun tema es dificil acceder a el, debidoprincipalmente a encontrar publicaciones con costos.

Apr 24, 2012 6:58 PM


1 of 17




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Oui 75.0% 3


answered question 4

skipped question 0



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellente 0.0% 0

Bonne 0.0% 0

Acceptable 33.3% 1

Pauvre 33.3% 1

Pas d’avis 33.3% 1

answered question 3

skipped question 1


2 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count






du temps33.3% 1



politiques

33.3% 1




0.0% 0


answered question 3

skipped question 1


3 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count




politiques33.3% 1








answered question 3

skipped question 1


4 of 17


forestières (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Très facile 0.0% 0

Acceptable 66.7% 2

Difficile 33.3% 1



1

answered question 3

skipped question 1


5 of 17



Très


Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 100.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3






tables)0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 3

Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (1) 66.7% (2) 3



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 3

answered question 3

skipped question 1


6 of 17




mauvaise

Pas

familier

Response

Count

Site Web FRA 0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3






Newsletter FRA 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 2



CD-ROM 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (2) 3

answered question 3

skipped question 1


7 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count


données66.7% 2


plus court33.3% 1


spécifiques66.7% 2




Webinaires 0.0% 0

Vidéos 0.0% 0



answered question 3

skipped question 1


8 of 17



que # 1, # 2 et # 3)

Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




caractéristiques)

1.00 3 3




3.00 6 2


(incendies, insectes, maladies) 0.00 0 0




reboisement)

2.00 4 2


(forêts protectrices) 0.00 0 0


2.00 2 1



juridique, le cadre

institutionnel, l’éducation et la

recherche)

3.00 3 1

answered question 3

skipped question 1


9 of 17


2015?

PlusPas de


Response

Count

Forêt naturelle 66.7% (2) 33.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3

Forêts plantées 33.3% (1) 66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3







subsistance0.0% (0) 100.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3


forêts33.3% (1) 66.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3



answered question 3

skipped question 1


10 of 17



s'appliquent)

Response

Percent

Response

Count




utiliser25.0% 1


l'information dans le rapport25.0% 1


dans le rapport principal50.0% 2


crédibles25.0% 1


utiliser25.0% 1

Les données sont trop générales et

pas assez spécifiques25.0% 1


des données50.0% 2




answered question 4

skipped question 0


11 of 17


s'applique)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Superficie des forêts naturelles

et leurs caractéristiques50.0% 2






Taux de déforestation /

dégradation50.0% 2






forêts25.0% 1





answered question 4

skipped question 0


12 of 17


Response

Percent

Response

Count






compris les étudiants)100.0% 4


Médias 0.0% 0


answered question 4

skipped question 0


13 of 17


Response

Percent

Response

Count







Europe 25.0% 1

Caraïbes 0.0% 0



Océanie 0.0% 0


Mondial 0.0% 0

answered question 4

skipped question 0



Response

Count

4

answered question 4

skipped question 0


14 of 17



Response

Count

4

answered question 4

skipped question 0


15 of 17


1 Afin d'exloiter les données de façon statistique, il serait plus simple d'avoir lesdonnées par ordre alphabétique (en plus de la classification par continent)

May 4, 2012 7:02 AM


16 of 17



1 1 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

2 1 May 2, 2012 11:41 PM

3 1 Apr 28, 2012 11:22 AM


1 3 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

3 3 Apr 28, 2012 11:22 AM



1 2 May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

3 2 Apr 28, 2012 11:22 AM



2 2 May 2, 2012 11:41 PM


2 3 May 2, 2012 11:41 PM


1 Augmenter l'homogénéité, la continuité et la crédibilité des données May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

2 la méthodologie May 2, 2012 11:41 PM

3 la structure des rapports Apr 28, 2012 11:22 AM

4 Néant Apr 24, 2012 8:15 AM


17 of 17


1 L'utilisation de l'enquête Remote Sensing devraient fortement aider à atteindreles trois objectifs précédemment cités. Pour l'exploitation dans la recherche, destables avec une classement des pays par ordre alphabétique seraient utiles.

May 4, 2012 7:02 AM

2 intégrer plus d'acteur depuis la phase de conception à la mise en oeuvre du FRA May 2, 2012 11:41 PM

3 Que le rapport comporte des données plus spécifiques que générales. Qu'il nesoit pas prolongue

Apr 28, 2012 11:22 AM

4 Néant Apr 24, 2012 8:15 AM



1 of 20




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 92.9% 13



skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 0.0% 0

Good 69.2% 9

Fair 30.8% 4

Poor 0.0% 0

No opinion 0.0% 0


skipped question 1

Summary by Audience - Intergovernmental

2 of 20


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count





time53.8% 7





business decisions

0.0% 0


1


skipped question 1


3 of 20


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication92.3% 12




decisions7.7% 1





skipped question 1


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 7.7% 1


Difficult 7.7% 1


No opinion 0.0% 0


5


skipped question 1


4 of 20




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 7.7% (1) 46.2% (6) 46.2% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13

Main Report 7.7% (1) 69.2% (9) 23.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13

FRA Database 8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 12

Country Reports 8.3% (1) 50.0% (6) 33.3% (4) 8.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 12

Key Findings 7.7% (1) 23.1% (3) 69.2% (9) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13

Global Tables 23.1% (3) 38.5% (5) 30.8% (4) 7.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 13

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 54.5% (6) 45.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 11



CD-ROM 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 50.0% (6) 8.3% (1) 12


skipped question 1


5 of 20


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 8.3% (1) 83.3% (10) 8.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12

Main Report 15.4% (2) 84.6% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13

FRA Database 7.7% (1) 84.6% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 7.7% (1) 13

Country Reports 15.4% (2) 53.8% (7) 23.1% (3) 0.0% (0) 7.7% (1) 13

Key Findings 15.4% (2) 84.6% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 13

Global Tables 41.7% (5) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 12

FRA Newsletter 9.1% (1) 45.5% (5) 9.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 36.4% (4) 11



CD-ROM 18.2% (2) 18.2% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.6% (7) 11


skipped question 1


6 of 20



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document23.1% 3





Webinars 23.1% 3

Videos 23.1% 3



2


skipped question 1


7 of 20



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




1.18 13 11



composition)

2.20 11 5


insects, diseases)

3.00 3 1




reforestation)

2.18 24 11



3.00 9 3


2.40 12 5





2.25 9 4


skipped question 1


8 of 20



Count

Natural forest 38.5% (5) 53.8% (7) 0.0% (0) 7.7% (1) 13

Planted forest 61.5% (8) 30.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 7.7% (1) 13



carbon)23.1% (3) 53.8% (7) 0.0% (0) 23.1% (3) 13


Forest health 38.5% (5) 30.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 30.8% (4) 13



management61.5% (8) 23.1% (3) 7.7% (1) 7.7% (1) 13



2


skipped question 1


9 of 20



Response

Percent

Response

Count






Report7.1% 1




enough28.6% 4

I am concerned about the reliability

of the data28.6% 4




2


skipped question 0


10 of 20



Response

Percent

Response

Count













management64.3% 9



forests57.1% 8


1


skipped question 0


11 of 20


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0






Media 0.0% 0



skipped question 0


12 of 20


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 14.3% 2



Europe 21.4% 3

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 7.1% 1


Global 42.9% 6


skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

13


skipped question 1


13 of 20



Response

Count

7

answered question 7

skipped question 7


14 of 20


1 Usefulness for contributing data to other related global and national reports Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM


1 Explaining more how the final figures have been calculated, if would clarify andhelp the users who are not involved in the data collection/analysis to understandwhy the numbers differ from the national statistics

May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

2 Try to keep same reporting variables in each report. Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

3 Use FRA data to contribute to other global and national reports that reach awider (non-forest) audience

Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

4 These reports are quite technical in nature and it is difficult to improve that,particularly since so many authors are involved in the writing process.

Apr 25, 2012 5:37 AM

5 Always provide the Excel version of the tables Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM


1 Additional report for policy makers - demonstrating "what is behind the figures" May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

2 Specific reports on forest degradation; biodiversity; non-wood forest products;forest genetic reseources

Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM


16 of 20



1 1 May 9, 2012 1:54 AM

2 2 May 6, 2012 10:47 AM

3 1 May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

5 1 Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

6 1 Apr 26, 2012 7:54 AM

7 1 Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

8 1 Apr 25, 2012 6:42 AM

9 2 Apr 25, 2012 5:37 AM

10 1 Apr 25, 2012 3:55 AM

11 1 Apr 25, 2012 3:17 AM

13 1 Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


2 1 May 6, 2012 10:47 AM

7 2 Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

8 3 Apr 25, 2012 6:42 AM

10 2 Apr 25, 2012 3:55 AM

13 3 Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


2 3 May 6, 2012 10:47 AM


1 2 May 9, 2012 1:54 AM

2 3 May 6, 2012 10:47 AM

3 2 May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

5 2 Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

6 2 Apr 26, 2012 7:54 AM


17 of 20


7 3 Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

8 2 Apr 25, 2012 6:42 AM

10 3 Apr 25, 2012 3:55 AM

11 2 Apr 25, 2012 3:17 AM

12 1 Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM

13 2 Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


1 3 May 9, 2012 1:54 AM

4 3 May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

11 3 Apr 25, 2012 3:17 AM


3 3 May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

4 1 May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

5 3 Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

9 3 Apr 25, 2012 5:37 AM

12 2 Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM


4 2 May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

6 3 Apr 26, 2012 7:54 AM

9 1 Apr 25, 2012 5:37 AM

12 3 Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM


1 Increment, NWFP, May 4, 2012 7:42 AM


18 of 20


2 Financing SFM Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM


1 Many data are incomplete and inconsistent. May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

2 Many data sets are not reported for all countries Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


1 ecosystem services provided by forests May 1, 2012 9:56 AM


19 of 20


1 Layout of country reports May 9, 2012 1:54 AM

2 More trend data - would require consistent data, possibly some not from countryreporting

May 6, 2012 10:47 AM

3 Clarification of the content (e.g. is monte desarbolado other wooded land?) May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

4 turn the preparation of national report into a process, involving differentstakholders/incl. NGOs - it would enhance the quality of data and make thereports more useful for the countries

May 1, 2012 9:56 AM

5 Better indicators of reliability of data should be given Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

6 Make raw data available Apr 26, 2012 7:54 AM

7 More alignment with reporting needs of global environmental agreements(reducing reporting burden and improve data quality and coherence); and furtherimprove the remost sensing component

Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

8 I would be happy to see the comprehensive global report and set of regionalones that are consistent with the global report but deeper analysing situation inthe regions, including region-specific data collection.

Apr 25, 2012 6:42 AM

9 More analysis, less descriptive. Apr 25, 2012 5:37 AM

10 Do more independent verification of data submitted from countries. Apr 25, 2012 3:17 AM

11 Just a slightly different format. Apr 25, 2012 2:02 AM

12 More consistent data with the national statistics of individual country Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM

13 The most important thing is to continue to work on improving the accuracy ofdata and that countries are reporting data consistently so that data can becompared across countries and across time.

Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


20 of 20


1 Complete the missing figures with expert estimats May 4, 2012 7:42 AM

2 see above Apr 30, 2012 10:47 PM

3 Further improve the remote sensing component and move to higher resolutionsatellite imagery

Apr 25, 2012 7:27 AM

4 Make the website more dynamic and interactive. Apr 25, 2012 3:17 AM

5 For the Figures (mainly relevant to world maps), perhaps use of a a bigger mapwith different colours referring to the different data, as opposed to using varioustones of green would have been little more reader-friendly.

Apr 25, 2012 2:02 AM

6 In the website, data is provided in Excell format for easier further analysis usingconsistent definition to make sure time series data can be analysed

Apr 25, 2012 1:13 AM

7 A lot of difficult work, but it would be extremely useful to harmonize and integratedata from FRA1980 to give longer and more consistent time series for keyvariables (mainly forest area/natural forests and plantations).

Apr 24, 2012 3:21 PM


1 of 14




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 100.0% 1


answered question 1

skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 0.0% 0

Good 100.0% 1

Fair 0.0% 0

Poor 0.0% 0

No opinion 0.0% 0

answered question 1

skipped question 0

Summary by Audience - Media

2 of 14


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count




Consistency of key variables

over time100.0% 1


contributing to policy making 0.0% 0



business decisions

0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 0


3 of 14


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication100.0% 1




decisions 0.0% 0

Contributing to teaching

materials100.0% 1



answered question 1

skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 0.0% 0


Difficult 0.0% 0


No opinion 0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 0


4 of 14




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Main Report 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Key Findings 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Global Tables 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


5 of 14


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Main Report 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Key Findings 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Global Tables 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0

6 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document 0.0% 0





Webinars 0.0% 0

Videos 0.0% 0



answered question 1

skipped question 0


7 of 14



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




2.00 2 1



composition)

1.00 1 1


insects, diseases) 0.00 0 0




reforestation)

0.00 0 0



3.00 3 1

Socio-economic functions 0.00 0 0





0.00 0 0

answered question 1

skipped question 0


8 of 14



Count

Natural forest 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Planted forest 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



carbon)0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1


Forest health 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



management100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



answered question 1

skipped question 0


9 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count






Report 0.0% 0




enough 0.0% 0


of the data 0.0% 0

I have no barriers or obstacles

to using the FRA100.0% 1


answered question 1

skipped question 0


10 of 14



Response

Percent

Response

Count




characteristics 0.0% 0









management 0.0% 0



forests100.0% 1


answered question 1

skipped question 0


11 of 14


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0






Media 100.0% 1


answered question 1

skipped question 0


12 of 14


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 0.0% 0



Europe 0.0% 0

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 0.0% 0


Global 100.0% 1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 0


13 of 14



Response

Count

0

answered question 0

skipped question 1


14 of 14



1 2 May 8, 2012 10:00 PM


1 1 May 8, 2012 10:00 PM




1 3 May 8, 2012 10:00 PM




1 I would like more information on primary and natural forests. May 8, 2012 10:00 PM


1 of 17




Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 50.0% 1


answered question 2

skipped question 0


Assessment (FRA)?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Excellent 0.0% 0

Good 0.0% 0

Fair 100.0% 1

Poor 0.0% 0

No opinion 0.0% 0

answered question 1

skipped question 1

Summary by Audience - Other

2 of 17


that apply)

Response

Percent

Response

Count




Consistency of key variables

over time100.0% 1


contributing to policy making 0.0% 0



business decisions

0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 1


3 of 17


Response

Percent

Response

Count


publication100.0% 1



Informing investment or

business decisions100.0% 1




1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Very easy 100.0% 1


Difficult 0.0% 0


No opinion 0.0% 0


answered question 1

skipped question 1


4 of 17




Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

Main Report 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

Country Reports 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Key Findings 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Global Tables 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

answered question 1

skipped question 1


5 of 17


(FRA) format?


Applicable

Response

Count

FRA Website 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

Main Report 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Database 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Country Reports 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Key Findings 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

Global Tables 0.0% (0) 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

FRA Newsletter 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0



CD-ROM 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0

answered question 1

skipped question 1


6 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count



document 0.0% 0





Webinars 0.0% 0

Videos 0.0% 0



1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


7 of 17



Response

Average

Response

Total

Response

Count




1.00 1 1



composition)

6.00 6 1


insects, diseases)

7.00 7 1




reforestation)

2.00 2 1



3.00 3 1


4.00 4 1





5.00 5 1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


8 of 17



Count

Natural forest 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1

Planted forest 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



carbon)100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1


Forest health 100.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1



management0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0



1

answered question 1

skipped question 1


9 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count


Website is too difficult to

navigate50.0% 1




Report50.0% 1



Data is too general and not

specific enough50.0% 1


of the data 0.0% 0


using the FRA 0.0% 0


1

answered question 2

skipped question 0


10 of 17



Response

Percent

Response

Count













management50.0% 1



forests 0.0% 0


1

answered question 2

skipped question 0


11 of 17


Response

Percent

Response

Count


organization 0.0% 0




(including students)50.0% 1


Media 0.0% 0


2

answered question 2

skipped question 0


12 of 17


Response

Percent

Response

Count




East Asia 0.0% 0



Europe 0.0% 0

Caribbean 0.0% 0



Oceania 0.0% 0


Global 0.0% 0

answered question 2

skipped question 0


would it be?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 0


13 of 17



Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 0


14 of 17

Page 3, Q3. 4. How have you used the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)?(Select all that apply)

1 Project context develpment May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 GIS & remote sensing results May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


15 of 17



1 1 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 6 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 7 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 2 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 3 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 4 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 5 May 5, 2012 12:23 PM



May 5, 2012 12:23 PM


1 less data on NWFPs which is area of interest Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM


1 Non wood forest products and livelihoods - national and global trends Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM


16 of 17



1 Consultant to other private, public and NGO actors on A/R and REDD May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 NGO also Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM



May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 Improved data is dependent on the initiative at the country level --incentivize/challenge countries to "compete" to offer robust data on the full rangeof forest use. This data could assist countries in proving the value of forest torural populations, and thus, lead to support (REDD, CC $ etc). Getting a betterhandle on the value of forests for subsistence and local and regional markets fortimber as well as NTFPs will be useful. Minor changes to existing agricultural oremployment census could do this -- sending countries examples of othercountries efforts to capture this data through simple questions would be apractical way to help countries move toward better data collection. Offering anFAO sponsored workshop for technicians responsible for the design of censuswould help -- particularly if multi-country respresentatives are present andchallenged to submit more robust data the next year.

Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM



May 5, 2012 12:23 PM

2 simplicity of format to access data on web--- offer practical means for countriesto capture data - offer concrete examples of countries that are providing rigorousdata. Promotion: media release for the general public to access the site - make itinteresng and accessible enough that teachers, citizens will want to use the site.Consider including a part on emotional connection to forests/trees/ -- whichcountries have schools that use forests as classrooms? that redesign hospitalsto overlook trees due to their recuprative value leading to improved health carecosts... these are financial upsides of trees/forests, also forests in urban areasneed greater attention. I would consider popularizing its use -- so that thegeneral public will be interested to use and access it. In this way, forests willhave a greater public supporting their sustainable use and conservation -- this

Apr 26, 2012 7:00 AM


17 of 17


could be one part of the assessment right up front -- the major findings easy tofind which the general public is interested in.


Documents

Global Forest Resources Assessment - User and Potential ...€¦ · No (If no, skip to Question 11) 15.4% 4 answered question 26 skipped question 0 2. 2. How would you rate the overall