Developing and applying internationally compatible terms, definitions and classifications for forest-related programmes have been a high priority of countries, institutions and individuals for a long time: botanists explored - and still explore – the plant and living animal species in forests and classify them according to global classification systems whose roots often go back to a system originally developed by Linnaeus in the 18th century. His system for naming, ranking and classifying organisms has remained a reference standard for more than 200 years now. Ecologists, geologists, climatologists and many other scientists of different disciplines also developed more or less global classification systems related to or applied in forest sciences. Such globally harmonized terms and classification systems have been of undisputed benefit to all. They have since greatly reduced coordination and communication costs at all levels, from local to global.
In fact, countries are the ones that benefit most from internationally harmonized terms and definitions. Changing terms and non-harmonized definitions for each of the global forest resources assessments undertaken by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) since 1947 as well as many other periodic forest-related assessments, be they national or international, come at a very high cost to countries. The comprehensive collection of information on the characteristics and extent of forests on a global level, based on more or less widely agreed terms and definitions, has now an almost 100 year history, with the first global assessment undertaken by the United States (US) in 1910. FAO, founded in 1945, undertook its first forest resources assessment (FRA) in 1947 and has since undertaken FRAs about every ten years. FAO is now in the process of preparing an update for 2005 and laying the foundation of the sixth global forest resources assessment in 2010. However, as terms and definitions used in the global assessments undertaken by FAO over decades changed from assessment to assessment, one of the most important benefits of repeated assessment was lost: to detect and assess changes in key characteristics of forests over time, including measuring progress towards sustainable forest management.
If global harmonization of key terms and definitions would have been feasible in 1947, the value of data collected then would have considerably increased with each subsequent assessment ever since. Countries would have time lines showing changes and trends on key aspects related to forests and progress towards sustainable forest management since then. The situation in fact is different. Very few or no timelines can reliably be constructed on any forest-related aspect on the basis of global FRA data. Thus, the data collected in previous data collection exercises is becoming largely useless. What is long established practice and taken for granted in many countries, namely, to make the harmonization of terms and definitions a priority and keep them stable over repeated assessments, has not yet been achieved at international level.
Consistent and harmonized terms and definitions would avoid the shortcomings and problems listed in the introduction section and they would enhance value for money spent in data collection on national levels through:
• benefits accruing over time through the ability to use previously collected data for time series, change detection and trend identification on national and international levels;
• increased and multiple use of data collected on national level;
• increased value of data that is compatible with and part of a larger multinational framework;
• increased influence on local data collection institutions and funding institutions if international framework exists;
• reduced costs and efforts of data collection, compilation or adjustment for different incompatible information needs and data requests and related formats;
• higher ability to profit from research and methodical developments and data collection that is relevant to use by countries;
• higher ability to benefit from data collected elsewhere, including for comparisons of the national situation in a wider international context;
• increased possibilities to collaborate and share data, e.g. on ecosystems, across administrative boundaries.
Progress in harmonizing terms and definitions would also support and facilitate the work of countries collaborating in regional and international C&I processes and international institutions; this would also help reduce efforts in data collection and reporting for the processes and could lower the barrier to report for those countries and processes that do not yet use C&I for reporting. Benefits for global institutions include the ability to better serve the requests of countries and the international community at large more timely, more accurately and with reduced costs and efforts.
Given the potential benefits that can be gained from further harmonizing terms and definitions, there is a clear need to make these benefits visible to countries. It is important to stress that there is a need for a common understanding of and thus harmonization between forest-related definitions of core terms used by different international processes and instruments emerging at all levels, from local to global.
Within countries as well as between countries information needs and requirements for data collection, monitoring, assessment and reporting change over time as new issues emerge, and need information, communication and co-ordination. Careful adaptation of information and data collection systems and protocols, and related terms and definitions are quite frequent, and the frequency of adaptation in such systems and protocols has increased in most countries over the last decade.
National inventories and data collection arrangements build the backbone of all international data collection and, likewise, national policies are the background of international policy processes. Nevertheless, these two areas have to observe often very different interests and objectives and often very specific information requirements. However, also international information requests are not an end in themselves but are the consequence of commitments made by countries to solve common forest-related problems and needs that are internationally acknowledged. Countries that have committed themselves to solving these problems have also committed to reporting on both actions taken and changes in forests and related social and economic conditions. Experience also shows that countries often take into account the outcome of international initiatives on the clarification and harmonization of terms, concepts and classifications when reviewing their national specifications, or even initiate a national adaptation after progress was made at international level.
Protection and adequate management of forest resources has become a global concern. Global-level data such as those provided by global resource assessments by FAO and others have been important and necessary to establish the basis for decisions on actions by countries and the international community. However, especially over the last decade, a range of global conventions has been agreed that address different forest-related aspects and that require ground-level data to assess the effectiveness of various commitments and actions. The multitude of data requests, the increasing frequency of information demands and the increased number of different bodies that need such data has led to a situation where many related international bodies have expressed the need to harmonize concepts, terms and definitions and streamline reporting. This need was explicitly expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) and the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF 2001).
Both IPF and IFF stressed the need to achieve a common international understanding of key forest-related concepts, terms and definitions, in order to facilitate the harmonization and streamlining of data and information requested by international organizations and instruments. IPF proposals 109, 111 and 115 specifically address C&I processes to work towards common international understanding of concepts, essential terms and definitions used in C&I for SFM. A summary of the IPF/IFF proposals for action related to concepts, terminology and definitions and their degree of implementation as of 2001 are summarized below in table 2.
Monitoring, assessment and reporting is one of the principal functions of UNFF. Recognizing the complexity of monitoring, assessment and reporting, UNFF has agreed to establish an ad hoc expert group to develop approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting in UNFF. In its deliberations in December 2003 the expert group reiterated the recommendation to use C&I as reference for reporting on SFM to UNFF and to use existing data collection mechanisms, especially the FAO-led global forest resources assessment and those C&I processes already undertaking reporting.
The fourth session of UNFF in May 2004 in Geneva will specifically address definitions, C&I and the broader issue of monitoring, assessment and reporting. The reports of the Secretary General that review progress in these areas could propose further ways for implementation.
Table 2: Summary of IPF/IFF proposals for action related to concepts, terminology and definitions, with indication of their status of implementation at UNFF2
FAO to formulate an internationally acceptable set of definitions of key terms used in the assessment of all types of forests. |
IPF 89(f) |
Implemented (FRA 2000) |
Countries, processes and international organizations, in particular FAO and UNEP to undertake efforts to achieve a common international understanding on concepts, essential terms and definitions used in criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. |
IPF 109, 111, 115(d) |
In process |
Explore consistency of terminology used in certification. |
133(d)(v) |
In process |
Initially, IPF called upon FAO to develop a definition of low forest cover; later, IFF called upon the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as the lead agency for this programme element to expedite the development of the definition. |
IPF 58(a); IFF 5 |
Limited progress |
Countries, including through international cooperation, to work towards an internationally agreed definition of planted forests. |
IFF 122(a) |
Implemented (FRA 2000) |
Another important need arises from other CPF members and their efforts to streamline international reporting, which led to the creation of the CPF task force on streamlining of forest-related reporting, comprising seven international forest-related bodies, including the secretariats of CBD, UNCCD and the UNFCCC. One highly, and possibly the most immediate, need for harmonizing terms, definitions and classifications arises from the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol under UNFCCC. However, in relation specifically to terms and definitions of forest-related aspects, including carbon-related matters, this is not the most appropriate initiative in which C&I processes, or countries collaborating therein, should get involved.
Harmonized terms and definitions agreed in international fora respond more than individual national contexts and needs. However, experience shows that over time useful concepts, terms and definitions at the international level are gradually taken up and integrated in national contexts. In all C&I processes the different countries involved in the process are integrating the concept of C&I at different speeds and intensity into their national policies and contexts. While several countries usually played a lead role and adopted concepts and terms early, in all C&I processes some countries have made little effort to adopt them. What seems important is that a critical number of countries be persuaded of the advantages and value of their use.
National adoption of internationally harmonized definitions, however, is a long-term process that can only happen gradually, and according to the needs and capabilities of the countries. Countries are justly more concerned about their immediate forest management needs rather than ideal internationally derived information requirements and specifications. Thus, the expectation should not be to expect fast changes in national definitions. However, harmonizing international definitions among international agencies is one form of pressure to get countries to review their national specifications. A voluntary and gradual adoption of internationally used terms and concepts at country level should over time in turn also act as an incentive to adopt international definitions.
Nevertheless it is important to make countries and processes more aware of the many benefits to be gained from international harmonization, e.g. through demonstrating examples of successful reduction of reporting burdens and costs. One such case is the introduction of the FAO/UNECE/EUROSTAT/ITTO Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire. Case studies that undertake a comparison of costs and resources needed to report on all reporting requests separately versus joint reporting could also be undertaken.
One of the most important forms to enhance the use of harmonized terms and definitions is to involve countries and experts from countries as much as possible in the harmonization process ongoing in the different international initiatives. One very successful example in this regard is the UNECE team of specialists on forest resources assessments, consisting mainly of national correspondents that are familiar with their national forest data and definitions situation. Building on this successful example, the national correspondents network for the global FRA has recently been strengthened considerably, and a first national correspondents training was organized in November 2003. A further very successful mechanism is periodic Kotka (Kotka I-IV) meetings, attended by country experts and held to evaluate past FRAs and to recommend improvements for subsequent FRAs. What seems also useful to further this end is the promotion of a higher level of collaboration and exchange between political-level (C&I processes, national representatives in international fora) and technical-level (national forest inventory, national correspondents to FRA) experts at national and international levels.
It is also important to ensure that countries and processes be aware of the long-term benefits of the use of C&I for SFM as the primary framework for reporting on progress in SFM, and the need and seriousness of harmonizing C&I terms and definitions at international level. This will help capture the future expectations of countries able to report on SFM. Reduced uncertainty about future developments in turn considerably reduces the risk of making wrong national decisions and enhances the willingness of countries to adopt internationally harmonized terms and definitions. However, as said above, it seems more important that countries adopt internationally agreed concepts, such as C&I for SFM, and related terms, rather than specific definitions.
In order to further reduce uncertainty on terms used in international for a, key documents on agreed terms and definitions used for C&I on SFM should be elaborated, promoted and publicized as widely as possible. These key documents would then have to be communicated widely and would act as flagship reference documents.
Table 3: Suggestions on how to strengthen the adoption of concepts, terms and definitions by countries
- Ensure that countries are aware of the long-term nature of the use of C&I for SFM as the lead concept, and thus the related terms. |
- Ensure that countries are aware of the many benefits of more harmonized terms and definitions by the countries themselves, and the costs of not doing so. |
- Assure countries are aware of the need for and seriousness of the initiatives now under way to harmonize terms and definitions. |
- Ensure the widest possible participation of country experts as well as high transparency in the development process of this key document on harmonized terms and definitions. |
- Develop one key global document on harmonized terms and definitions, communicate widely and promote its adoption and application as widely as possible. |
- Lead by example in the use of harmonized terms and definitions in national and international reporting. |
- Promote programmes for the assistance of countries that are asking for such assistance on data collection systems and procedures that include the clarification of terms, definitions and classifications. |
Another strategy for ensuring that an increased number of countries use harmonized terms and definitions is to lead by example. Countries or C&I processes already using C&I for reporting should clearly communicate the harmonized terms and definitions they have used. Countries collaborating in C&I-based reporting should specify the use of harmonized definitions in their reports as an explicit requirement, and support countries in other C&I processes that do not yet report on their efforts. Countries that expressed their interest in international assistance in the further development and improvement of their national data collection systems and procedures, including the clarification of terms, definitions and classifications in a national context should get assistance using harmonized terms (see e.g. the related FAO national FRA assistance initiative). A summary of suggestions on how to promote the use of harmonized terms and definitions by countries is found in table 3.
