To Ms. Wolf-Crowther
Dear Marilise
Welcome to the Forum, and thanks for the precise comments. I have set out my response to each comment below.
#1: Forest area alone or including "other wooded land"? I propose the former, to align with the SDGs. What "land area" means also needs to be specified: with or without the area of inland water? I propose the latter.
Yes, I think the Global Core Set should focus on “Forest”, leaving “other wooded land” aside for the time being, following practice elsewhere. In general, the set should not reinvent the wheel but follow established practice wherever possible. This reduces the reporting burden, and improves consistency between data sets and analysis. Likewise for inland water: let us follow FRA practice
#3 could be simply the growing stock of timber on forest area. Biomass stock can be calculated fro this. In practice, the biomass of non-timber will not be known. In general, all variables needed for carbon reporting should be covered.
The main difference between growing stock of timber and above ground biomass is the volume of wood beyond the stem (which is roughly what is measured for growing stock): branches etc., which can be significant for some species. “Non-timber” biomass is apparently not very large and certainly difficult and expensive to measure. In general, however, growing stock in m3 and biomass in tons will follow the same trends. The latter was chosen because it communicates better with eh “climate change community”. In practice, the differences will be quite superficial. However, above ground biomass has now been accepted as a component of the SDG indicator 15.2.1, which is unlikely to be changed at this stage. So it is prudent to stay with “above ground biomass”.
#5 this and other economic variables should be in agreement with national accounts.
Yes, of course. But beware the classification problems I mentioned to Mr. Benitez.
#6: rather weak, better "Are SFM policies enforced?"
Here we touch on the sensitive issue of effectiveness of policy and governance, which is usually approached indirectly (How many governments will answer “No” to your question?). It seems better to ask governments to present, in a transparent way, what their policies are, and what institutions are responsible for implementing, and what resources have been made available. It is then possible for analysts, of international organisations or civil society to bring the data together and provide a realistic, preferably non-judgemental, conclusion.
#8 is too general. I would replace this and #16 with 3 questions:
1) Size of the forest area inhabited by indigenous peoples?
2) How many indigenous persons depend entirely for their survival upon the forest land they inhabit, yet have no formal ownership?
3) Size of the forest area where persons who depend upon it for their survival can participate in forest-related decisions?
Indicator 8 is not primarily focused on indigenous peoples but on the mechanisms for participation, chiefly national forest programmes. For this indigenous peoples are important, but so are civil society and the private sector. Indicator 16 is indeed a major challenge, especially as “livelihoods of forest dependent people” are specifically mentioned in the Global Forest Goals and targets (Target 2.1 “Extreme poverty for all forest dependent people is eradicated”). I believe that as a forest community, we should not try to avoid responsibility in this area, but address the major challenges which include: definition of forest dependent people, as well as defining and measuring livelihoods. Clearly, existing forest inventory systems are not designed to answer these questions, so specific surveys will probably be necessary (in cooperation with efforts to monitor SDGs, notably 1.1, focused on extreme poverty and livelihoods, inside and outside forests).
#9 & 10 could be merged.
They are certainly linked, but certification is much more comprehensive, as well as being voluntary and market based. There are also problems with defining management plans (do they have to be approved? For what minimum size of holding?) At present both these indicators are listed as subcomponents for SDG indicator 15.2.1 on progress towards sustainable forest management. It is prudent to maintain the exact wording used by the SDG monitoring exercise.
#12: both removals and fellings are needed, as is net annual increment, the latter 2 for carbon reporting.
I agree that volume of removal (or fellings) is not very meaningful measured in isolation. Unfortunately, many countries, especially with many natural forests, do not have data on increment, so to see the removals/increment balance, we have to look at trends in growing stock/biomass. Se my response to Mr. Benson for more background
#13: both are difficult. Positive facts are easier to collect, e.g. "How much timber was felled with a certificate of legality?"
I agree that both are difficult! Do all countries have “certificates of legality”? And do they keep statistics on it? My feeling at present is that the existence of a traceability system (for all wood, not just domestically produced) is essential to get at the proportion of wood from sustainable sources (another of the forest goals),and is relatively easy to answer on a yes/no basis
#14 & #15: delete and replace with
I fear we cannot delete 15 as there are strong commitments to halt forest degradation (GOF 1) – even though defining and monitoring “forest degradation” has proved challenging
- How many forest tree species exist in the wild?
This question has proved (surprisingly?) very hard to answer in Europe, and I do not think it would be easier elsewhere. Also, the meaning of the indicator is not clear as species abundance varies a lot between ecosystems, so it is not a policy relevant indicator
- How any of these are planted for commercial use?
The motives of plantations are often complex and change over time
- Naturalness: size of forest area with natural regeneration? Conversely, size of plantation area?
FRA collects information on area of natural forest and plantations. As regards “disturbance”, “damage” and “degradation”, there are many difficulties in distinguishing natural ecosystem processes, such as wildfire or insect infestations, from external “damage” or “degradation”
#17: this should come from national accounts (subsidies).
Yes. But subsidies are far from being the whole picture: “all sources” includes commercial investment, by forest owners and the financial community, which are not identified (except at the aggregate level, perhaps) in national accounts
#18: drop the "modern clean systems" and change to "estimate of fuelwood consumption in households in 1000 m3"; alternatively "gross inland energy consumption from solid biomass".
Or, alternatively, drop the indicator? We all agree biomass energy is important, but the linked questions are quite complex and a single indicator may over-simplify the question
#19 is linked to #4, but is not yet viable at a global level.
I am afraid you are right!
Thanks again
Kit
السيد Christopher Prins