As has been noted by several international initiatives on terms and definitions the aim of international level work related to terms and definitions on C&I for SFM should be on the harmonization of existing terms and definitions rather than their standardization.
Table 14: Recommendations of Kotka III (1996) on data collection and data adjustment protocols and procedures.
- The secretariat for FRA should provide guidelines and definitions so that countries can adapt their data to fit the requirements. |
- Countries should be encouraged to adjust their data as far as possible to the common definitions and common reference years and describe precisely both how the data were collected and how they were adjusted. |
- Countries should submit adjusted data for a specified reference period, as well as the sources data from which they are derived. |
- Countries should be encouraged to develop or modify their inventory methods so that they can provide results according to the common standards. This requires that these common standards and definitions remain constant over time. |
- For developing countries a network of regional and national correspondents should be established to associate countries in the assessment process and to collect data that are available in countries (e.g. areas available for wood supply). |
The long-term vision could be to arrive at a consistent and compatible set of internationally used terms and definitions that cover internationally widely used C&I for SFM and which are as stable over time as possible, yet as adaptive as necessary to accommodate changing needs. This set of international terms and definitions should allow easy and consistent transformation of national data to international levels.
Further work on harmonizing concepts, terms, definitions and classifications used at the international level is and will be undertaken by many bodies and processes. It is therefore essential to identify areas where C&I processes can make a useful contribution, and possibly have a common understanding of a range of principles for further work. Some initial principles could be:
- C&I processes should assist global-level efforts in harmonizing terms and definitions wherever invited to do so and should avoid duplication of work or the creation of contradicting or competing classifications or definitions at global level
- C&I processes should take global level agreements fully into account in regional-level work on the harmonization of terms and definitions
- C&I processes should adopt existing international definitions wherever possible; whenever necessary, these should be adapted, improved and related to each other
- C&I processes should help identify needed definitions, as new information needs and indicators are generating new terms
- C&I processes that have not yet begun reporting should attempt insofar as possible to use definitions already agreed by processes that are reporting.
Jointly, C&I processes can make contributions to the harmonization of terms and definitions by raising awareness of the importance of the issue, including putting the topic on the agenda and presenting specific suggestions at regular expert meetings and wider C&I-related conferences, as was done at the international expert meeting in the Philippines in March 2004. C&I processes can also make contributions to the harmonization of terms and definitions by jointly reporting on C&I for SFM, using common terms and definitions.
Countries and experts involved in C&I processes can also contribute to the harmonization of terms and definitions through getting involved in other initiatives. Possibly the most relevant initiative related to C&I for SFM is the FRA 2005 update and FRA 2010. A range of mechanisms has been put in place to involve country experts in the design, implementation and review of FRAs. Five mechanisms that operate on the global level are currently most visible and could be used as possible platforms for further increased collaboration between C&I experts and between these and FRA on the harmonization of terms and definitions related to C&I for SFM at global level (table 15).
Table 15: Existing global mechanisms and platforms that could be used for increased collaboration on the harmonization of terms and definitions involving C&I processes.
Global |
- Kotka meetings related to FRA (approx. every five years) |
- Network of National Correspondents for FRA | |
- Advisory Group on FRA | |
- Periodic meetings of experts or countries on C&I for SFM (e.g. ECCI 20049) | |
- CPF Task Force on Forest Related Reporting |
FAO has taken steps towards strengthening the link between FAO and the national correspondents for FRA, and experts from C&I processes have participated in all mechanisms listed in table 15 above. However, there might indeed be benefits by making better use of expertise available in the C&I processes, as, after all, FAO, national correspondents to FRA and experts of the C&I processes cover similar areas and should have similar overall interests, namely to improve data quality on the situation of SFM worldwide. Indeed, with the adoption of the common thematic areas and the closer thematic correspondence of FRA 2005 update tables with information needs specified through indicators, this thematic link has strengthened recently, and could grow even stronger in the run-up to FRA 2010.
In this context it might be useful to identify priority areas for further work on harmonization of terms and definitions related to C&I for SFM and to establish specific working groups on some specific areas that need more in-depth background work. Possible areas for specific work by working groups to be established are, e.g. on valuation of forest goods and services or social functions. See also table 13 for a list of topics. These working groups could then be asked to present proposals to be discussed at one of the mechanisms or platforms listed in table 15. An alternative or additional option to working groups is to assign work to specific experts to present options and proposals for discussion at these platforms. Note that it might be wise not to start with the most contentious issue. What seems useful is to agree not only on common priority topics but also on a time plan for the work on these topics.
Furthermore, it is also necessary to strengthen the compatibility of terms and definitions used for forest-related C&I with those used in other areas of land use and other sectors, including agri-environmental indicators, rangelands and indicators of economic activities, to ensure common use of terms across sectors and data uses, including on employment and economic accounts, and to strengthen coordination with other institutions developing or applying C&I sets, including those institutions collaborating in CPF. To make other groups better aware of the work in the context of C&I processes and to explore possible synergies, a workshop could be convened under the auspices of CPF and involving C&I processes, CPF members that request country information on forests, and other instruments developing or using global indicators related to forests. The purpose of the workshop would be to share information about the data collected and to explore possibilities for synergies and joint action by the processes and instruments to facilitate harmonization of global information on forests.
Over the longer term, countries involved in C&I processes could consider identifying common indicators in all the C&I processes as a means to progressing in harmonizing concepts and terms, as requested by UNFF. This could lead to a common agreement, e.g. at a global conference organized in 2007, on a list of common topics under the seven common thematic areas, and similarly to the agreement reached at CICI 2003 on common thematic areas.
Given the fact that three of the nine C&I processes use C&I to report on SFM, and given the fact that existing mechanisms and institutions are in place that run across these three C&I processes, it seem useful to further explore possibilities of increased collaboration on the harmonization of concepts, terms, classifications and definitions between these processes.
The UNECE team of specialists on FRA includes members and experts of MCPFE and several of the Montreal process countries. However, despite this overlap, the experts in these two groups have had comparatively little contact. Increased collaboration between these two groups in general and on the harmonization of terms and definitions in particular would be both feasible and desirable. The UNECE team of specialists and the C&I process representatives could jointly explore possible ways and means to harmonize terms, definitions and concepts in the region, but also options and possibilities for common data collection formats and protocols. The next opportunity to do so is the upcoming meetings of the UNECE team of specialists or the related Montreal process WG or TAC meetings.
The FAO/ECE/EUROSTAT/ITTO inter-secretariat working group on forestry statistics could be invited to consider extending the area of coverage of topics of their joint questionnaire where data could be collected periodically (instead of annually, as for the forest products) for reporting on socio-economic aspects of C&I for SFM.
In relation to collaboration between C&I processes that already report and other C&I processes that do not yet report, the ITTO/ATO joint initiative is a positive example of a "buddy system", where processes with a similar context on the ground team up for the sake of enhanced common progress.
Table 16: Existing global mechanisms and platforms that could be used for increased collaboration on the harmonization of terms and definitions involving C&I processes
International or regional |
- UNECE Team of Specialists on FRA |
- Inter-Secretariat Working Group on Forestry Statistics of FAO/ECE/EUROSTAT/ITTO | |
- C&I process meetings of individual processes |
All C&I processes that are currently not active in further harmonizing concepts, terms and definitions as well as classifications – or elaborating, implementing or improving common data collection formats or protocols or guidelines - should be invited to do so and all processes that have already identified issue areas for further work should be encouraged to proceed.
Also at country level increased efforts seem feasible and necessary to enhance the awareness of technical experts within countries on the existence of C&I for SFM and on collaboration between the many different institutions within one country that collect forest-related data that are relevant to C&I for SFM. There seems considerable potential in virtually any country to harmonize not only data collection routines, systems and protocols, but also to develop harmonized terms and definitions used by the different organizations.
The FAO/ITTO international expert consultation on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in March 2004 in the Philippines could discuss and decide on a range of issues and aspects related to harmonizing terms and definitions (table 17).
Table 17: Possible topics of discussion and work at the FAO/ITTO international expert consultation on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (March 2004)
- Agree on a list of principles for work on terms, classifications and definitions |
- Identify issue areas for harmonization of terms, classifications and definitions |
- Agree on priorities for the harmonization of terms, classifications and definitions |
- Discuss possible work, time horizons and elaborate suggestions how to better utilize different existing mechanisms and fora on global and regional level |
- Elaborate and decide on recommendations and suggestions to be addressed to other fora |
A starting point for possible working groups to identify issue areas could be to work in those already identified by C&I processes or national correspondents in the context of FAO and listed in this document. What has to follow is a step-by-step thorough discussion and agreement on all major terms, with the understanding that these should remain constant over time as much as feasible. As this is a time-consuming process that requires a wide participation of experts from countries, it is clear that this involves a time horizon beyond 2005. The start is to identify and agree the most important ones, the design of a work programme and a time schedule for expert meetings. This could be done as a standard component of international FRA-related meetings, on both global and regional levels.
The most important international institutions and processes that could be addressed are UNFF, CBD, CPF and FAO in the context of its work on FRA. UNFF 4 in May 2004 will address “monitoring, assessment and reporting”, “concepts, terminology and definitions” and “criteria and indicators”. In relation to UNFF 4, C&I processes could call upon UNFF to take note of the outcome of CICI 2003 in terms of harmonization of concepts, especially the seven common thematic areas, and to recommend and support its wide application. It could also call upon UNFF to support the work and outcomes of this expert meeting.
In relation to work on terms and definitions of other CPF members, the C&I processes could commend CPF for its work on streamlining reporting and the FAO-led harmonization initiative and offer their support and assistance, as needed. CPF could also act as a communication channel to CBD and the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol with its more specific data needs and related IPCC specification.
FAO, in the context of FRA 2005 and 2010, could be invited to:
- invite national correspondents and experts from C&I processes to a workshop to share their country practices and work on one or more of the specific issues identified above (e.g. on forest classification, forest "designation") with the aim to contribute to a widely agreed classification scheme for global FRA 2010;
- invite experts from C&I processes, among others, to be part of a task group to elaborate or discuss proposals for global-level issues such as a classification for social and cultural values;
- invite C&I processes to Kotka meetings;
- convene a joint meeting of the Advisory Group on FRA with C&I process representatives.
The main addressees for recommendations formulated in this meeting should be countries, both in their capacity to support and implement terms and definitions related work in their countries and their role in enhancing related work in C&I processes and the international fora and institutions mentioned above.
9 Expert consultation on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.
