Synthesis of online consultation on Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators
Dear all,
Over the consultation as a whole, there were 34 individuals or groups who contributed, sometimes more than once, representing all regions and many different specialities. In addition, the webpage of the consultation received around 1,300 page views over the 3 weeks of the consultation. This clearly demonstrates a high level of interest in the question. Most of the contributions were quite comprehensive and all showed that the contributor had thought in depth about the issues
It is fair to say that everyone supported the basic concept of the Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which should be short, comprehensive and balanced, and help the forest sector to monitor the high level policy commitments on forests, while reducing the reporting burden.
Some of the debate was quite detailed, but some general points emerged:
For any indicator set, it is crucial to clearly articulate the objectives. For the Global Core Set, these are to be derived from the high level policy commitments, notably the SDGs, the Aichi targets and the newly approved Global Forest Goals and Targets. The forest community has an obligation to put itself in a position to supply information on progress towards the goals identified by policy makers, and the Global Core Set should streamline this process.
Indicators should all have a clear significance, with a relevance to the high level policy goals, and not be purely descriptive. The significance should be clearly understandable from the wording of the indicator.
In general some areas were covered less strongly than others, notably socio-economic factors, biodiversity outcomes and food security. One participant started the discussion with some suggestions as to what information should be collected on forests’ contribution to food security, but, as she said, much remains to be done
When agreed, the Global Core Set should have a “narrative” setting out its objectives, and a set of notes on how the indicators should be interpreted. The order of indicators should also be restructured (the present numbering emerged from earlier stages of the consultation, and was maintained for ease of reference).
Throughout, the indicators should be consistent, to the extent possible, with other relevant work, notably FRA, IUCN (on protected areas), UNFCCC (on GHG stocks and flows) etc.
Faced with the challenge of devising indicators on difficult topics, it was suggested that provisions be made for continuous development of the Global Core Set. For instance, indicators which were not ripe for inclusion, for methodological or data reasons, could be put on a “candidate list” to be worked on.
The situation and viewpoints of Low Forest Cover Countries must also be reflected
For policy instruments, it is not enough just to look at the existence of an instrument, but also its effectiveness. But how to do this in a context of international indicators?
Coverage of non-wood forest products is weak. Several participants suggested specific NWFP to consider.
The following points were made about specific indicators:
On forest-related jobs (#5), many wanted to expand the scope beyond “forestry and logging” to include downstream activities (industries) and forest related jobs in tourism, research, education, conservation and so on, as well as forest-related subsistence livelihoods.
Indicator 7 (ODA) could be merged with indicator 11 (finance from all sources for SFM)
There were differences of opinion on indicator 10 Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme. Some considered it not necessary as certification is a private, voluntary method, while others pointed to its clarity and visibility, as well as to the fact that some governments did indeed use certification as part of forest policy. It was pointed out that this indicator is a subcomponent of SDG indicator 15.2.1 on Progress towards SFM, and that there should be consistency between the Global Core Set and the SDGs. PEFC and FSC are now working together to quantify forest areas with double certification, removing one obstacle to estimating the total area of certified forest.
Several welcomed the draft indicator on traceability systems (#13), as a tool against illegal logging and as a contribution to monitoring the share of products from sustainably managed forests (Global Forest Target 3.3).
Doubts were expressed about how to formulate indicator 14 on forest health and vitality, which should be expressed in terms of share of forest area disturbed. However, most seem to favour the maintenance of an indicator in this area, whatever the problems.
Global Forest Target 1.3 includes a commitment to “restore degraded forests”, so an indicator on area of degraded forest (#15) seems necessary. However, finding a workable definition for “degraded forest” is challenging.
An indicator of livelihoods of forest dependent people (#16) should be included, but is very difficult to formulate properly. This indicator might be adapted to reflect the commitment to eradicate extreme poverty for all forest dependent people (Global Forest Target 2.1). .
Should an indicator on wood energy (#18) be included? Some pointed out the policy importance of wood energy, as on the frontier between forest and energy policy, while others considered it outside the scope of SFM, and difficult to monitor. (Wood energy is not actually mentioned in the high level commitments. SDG 7.2.1 refers to renewable energy as whole.)
Interest was expressed in a new indicator on payment for ecosystem services (#19) as an emerging policy instrument in the green economy concept, but most considered the concept and data was not yet ripe to include this in a global core set.
There seems to be consensus on dropping the indicator (#20) on recovery rates for wood and paper.
Some proposed to drop the indicator on carbon stocks and flows (#21) as outside the scope of SFM, but others supported its maintenance – or at least of net GHG sink/source from forests. Otherwise it might appear that forests are not contributing to climate change mitigation. Indicator 3 on above ground biomass does not cover the whole topic. Concern was expressed that the data would have to be supplied by UNFCCC, according to guidelines different from those in FRA.
The next step for the Global Core Set is working group discussions at the Expert Consultation on FRA2020 in June. The results of the on-line consultation will be presented to participants. Then the CPF will finalise the Global Core Set, which will be presented, by CPF, to the thirteenth session of the UN Forum on Forests in 2018.
I take this opportunity to warmly thank you all again for your participation and your valuable contributions to this intense high level consultation. It has indeed been a very rewarding and useful process.
The on-line consultation has now been completed. Thank you all: you made many lively and constructive contributions. Over the consultation as a whole, there were 34 individuals or groups who contributed, sometimes more than once, representing all regions and many different specialities. In addition, the webpage of the consultation received in total around 1,300 page views over the 3 weeks of the consultation. This clearly demonstrates a high level of interest in the question. Most of the contributions were quite comprehensive and all showed that the contributor had thought in depth about the issues
It is fair to say that everyone supported the basic concept of the Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which should be short, comprehensive and balanced, and help the forest sector to monitor the high level policy commitments on forests, while reducing the reporting burden.
In addition to the points I mentioned in the first two overviews, the following emerged in the last few days:
Faced with the challenge of devising indicators on difficult topics, it was suggested that provisions be made for continuous development of the Global Core Set. For instance, indicators which were not ripe for inclusion, for methodological or data reasons, could be put on a “candidate list” to be worked on.
On process, the on-line consultation will be reported to the Expert Consultation on the FRA2020 in June, which will also discuss the core set. Thereafter, the CPF will finalise the list and present it to UNFF13 in 2018.
Many expressed a wish for an indicator on non-wood forest products
On forest-related jobs, many wanted to expand the scope beyond “forestry and logging” to include downstream activities (industries) and forest related jobs in tourism, research, education, conservation and so on, as well as forest-related subsistence livelihoods.
PEFC and FSC are now working together to quantify forest areas with double certification, removing one obstacle to estimating the total area of certified forest.
Many stressed the importance of including “Share of forest area disturbed”, while acknowledging problems in measuring the various disturbances, and combining the outcomes.
When agreed, the Global Core Set should have a “narrative” setting out its objectives, and a set of notes on how the indicators should be interpreted.
Throughout, the indicators should be consistent with other relevant work, notably FRA, IUCN (on protected areas), UNFCCC (on GHG stocks and flows) etc.
An indicator on the contribution of forests and trees to food security would be desirable, because of Global Forest Goal 2.3. But how to measure it? One participant started the discussion with some suggestions, but, as she said, much remains to be done.
In the context of “forest dependent people”, one contributor pointed out that we are all dependent on forests in one way or another, which is true.
I agree that non-wood forest products are very important, for forest value and for livelihoods. The challenge is measuring such different products and assigning monetary values to them (the only solution for any aggregated outcome).
I recently had the privilege of visiting Chile’s untouched temperate rain forests, so fully agree on the importance of public recreation and tourism. There are challenges however, notably of multi-function forests which provide recreation and tourism alongside protection, biodiversity and even wood, as well as distinguishing “availability” for recreation from actual use for recreation, as measured for instance by visitor numbers (rarely available). In the European context we have been wrestling with this dilemma for some time, with limited success, it must be said.
I agree with you on the need to build in adaptation/improvement processes from the beginning, and to closely coordinate between GCS and FRA – while maintaining their quite separate missions.
On the specific indicators:
#4 It is quite true that measuring the contribution of multi-function forests (i.e. all of them) is difficult, but necessary. This indicator is the only one on the protection functions of forests, which usually are not remunerated, and often (but not always) occur as a consequence of the pure existence of the forest.
# 5 We do need a more accurate indicator of “employment associated with the forest secor”, including upstream (forest) and downstream (industry) as well as forest related jobs n conservation, education, research, ourism etc. Getting this out of noral employment statistics may need a creative approach!
#10 We are aware of the shortcomings of certification as an indicator of SFM, and the need to intepret the results carefully (that applies to all the indicators). It is however very impactful and easily understood, which is presumably why it is part of the SDG 15.2.1 indicator, which the GCS should shadow. I agree that this indicator should receive ongoing scrutiny, and care be taken to point out that many sustainably managed forests are not certified.
#14 Share of forest area disturbed is indeed vital, and needs a lot of work, because of the specific characteristics of the different types of disturbance. Breaking it up by type of disturbance is probably necessary for the construction of the data, but at the “macro” level of the Global Core Set, it will be necessary to aggregate them.
Thank you for your interesting contribution, which opens the discussion to some new aspects (Hollywood!).
I fully agree that social aspects are not covered well enough. One fundamental reason is that our forest community is better at measuring trees and ecosystems than societies and social processes. We have to learn, and your demonstration of the many people-centred ways in which forests contribute to new Zealanders’ welfare was very interesting. In other countries, the list would look quite different. However, unfortunately, I do not think we are ready yet to include an extra indicator to the Global Core Set, which is linked to the global commitments, measurable and universal. But we must work towards this correction as our present unbalanced indicator set (which reflects data measurement problems, but also in many cases, policy priorities) will influence the way we, and people outside the “forest sector”, think about our challenges and issues.
Thank you for your wide ranging, realistic and detailed comments. I will do my best to cover all the questions you raise, in a summarised way.
It is indeed important to have indicators which are focused and clear as to their meaning (not too “diluted”). In practice this is quite difficult, and our present set could certainly be improved. I think the Global Core Set should be expressed in such a way that its meaning is evident, even to non-specialists (after all, policy makers are the primary audience!). It will need explanatory notes, for those who have to work closely with it, notably data providers, but the indicators should be able to stand alone. We have not yet started drafting a “narrative” (although it is implicit in many of the remarks in this online forum), but my personal view is that it should be simple and focused on why the indicators are needed, not on how they should be defined and collected. The latter questions are, of course, essential, but should not conceal the broad intentions of the set.
I like your concept of setting in motion a process to bring up indicators which are not yet ready for the Global Core Set, so that they can “graduate” at some future time. The Global Core Set will certainly have weak points (you mention some of them), but we should not accept this situation for ever. Perhaps a short list of “candidate” indicators could be attached to the final set. However the existence of such a candidate list should not be an excuse for avoiding important topics which must be in the Global Core Set itself. Improving coverage of socio-economic indicators, biodiversity and payment for ecosystem services would figure prominently on that list. We would certainly use the experience of the Montréal Process, and of the other regional sets in this process.
Reactions to some of your detailed comments:
#4 Another contributor suggested “Forest area designated and/or managed for protection of soil and water”. I think that would address the issue you raise?
#6, 7 and 8 The notes should indeed make clear what types of policies and institutions are meant here, as well as the importance of “process”. In fact experience with FRA 2015 on these topics seems to be quite positive.
#13 and 10. I see traceability and certification as two sides of a coin, both the fight against illegal logging and increasing the share of products from sustainably managed forests – and being able to demonstrate that they do in fact come from sustainably managed forests.
#14 It is now clear that “health and vitality” should not be part of the indicator itself, and just confuses the topic. It is already difficult enough to define and measure “disturbance”!
#18 Opinions appear divided on whether or not wood energy is inside the scope of SFM. I am not sure myself which way to go.
#19 Agree that PES is not “ripe” yet. Perhaps to include it in the list of “candidates”?
#21 Clearly data on carbon/GHG stocks and flows should be collected through UNFCCC which has well tested guidelines. However is climate change mitigation through forests really outside the scope of a Global Core Set of forest related indicators?
Thank you for raising the question of finalising the Global Core Set. I am not a part of the decision making bodies but, as I understand it, the idea is to have an open and participatory process of drawing up the Global Core Set, including the OLI and the online consultation, which will finish at the Expert Consultation in Joensuu, but not to have a formal negotiating process. The final decision on the Global Core Set will be taken by the CPF, on the basis of the consultation process. I do not think any decision has been made inside the CPF on how this will be done. However, the CPF has been formally asked by UNFF12 to present the Global Core Set to UNFF13 next year, so countries will have a chance to comment then.
Thank you for your comments and above all for linking the Global Core Set to its stated objectives. In other work, I have prepared cross references between the draft Global Core Set and the forest relevant SDG indicators, the Global Forest Goals and Targets and the Aichi Targets relevant to forests: I can confirm that most of the targets are covered in some way by the Global Core Set, with the exception of food security and some of the institutional objectives in Global Forest Goals 4 and 6, which are not well adapted to an indicator approach. Coverage of the contribution of forests to “social, economic and environmental development” (GFGT 2.4) is weak, chiefly because of the vagueness of wording of the target.
I would be cautious about splitting the Global Core Set into sections according the goals, as the idea of the core set is to achieve efficiency by devising indicators which can be useful in several contexts, thus reducing the reporting burden.
As regards your detailed comments (apart from indicators where you agreed with the draft):
#5 Several others also support including forest industries in the employment indicaor
#10 “Available for wood supply” has proved difficult to measure in practice even in Europe, and is not in FRA 2015: so it might be difficult to include.
#12 I would also like to have data on increment. Unfortunately, many countries, especially those with many natural forests, do not have this information, and it is not in FRA.
#16 It is clear that getting data on livelihoods will be difficult. But can we ignore this issue, when there is a clear commitment to eradicate extreme poverty of forest dependent people?
#21 At this stage, the Global Core Set does not specify where the data would come from. Clearly on carbon/GHG stocks and flows UNFCCC would be a major source
On the additional indicators you propose:
Naturalness data are available and provide important context. However, it is hard to see how management and policy can influence this in the short term.
Data on genetic diversity are indeed important, and are slowly improving in Europe (hanks to effective cooperation with a specialised institution), although problems remain. Is it realsitic to expand this to the global level?
Thank you for the interesting comments and challenging questions. Any indicator set needs to be put in a context and address specific questions.
On your specific remarks
#2 I am not sure we will break down the totals, but at least use IUCN concepts of what consitutes “protection”. Many foresters would say that all forests are protected, simply by the existence of a forest law, but this is not what is meant here.
#5 Two points: “logging” is included because that is the title of the heading in ISIC. Others have suggested a wider scope for this indicator. You raise an important point about the meaning of the indicator. Frequently SFM is welcomed as a provider of jobs, but people tend to forget that labour, like all other factors of production should be used efficiently. We should not aim at SFM only to provide jobs. And in many advanced forest countries, employment in forestry is dropping steadily because of improved productivity (while forest related jobs may be expanding – but we don’t know for sure)
#11 ODA is included because there is a commitment to provide more ODA (or financial respources in general), and this should be monitored. But I share your concerns about the meaning of this, espcially as many countries in the world receive no ODA, for forests or anything else. Here, it is the donors, rather than the recipients who might be monjitoried.
#16 Likewise with forest dependent people. Here the main commitment is to eradicate extreme poverty for all forest dependent people. Perhaps we should focus on reducing the number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty?
Community forestry is of course important in those countries where it is possible/apprpriate, which is by no means all countries in the world (remember this global core set applies to all countries, not just developing countries), so this might be difficult. Is there a clear and accepted defintion of “community forestry”?
I agree that socio-economic and biodiversity indicators are not well covered, for the reasons you mention.
As regards your detailed comments (ignoring, for the sake of space, those occasions when you provide background or say that further definition of terms is needed):
#4 Excellent idea to use “designated and/or managed”, as in many cases there is no formal/legal designation
# 5 I agree with your proposal to include downstream (industry) and forest-related jobs, even though these will be difficult to measure in practice
#6 Good idea to add legal frameworks. Possibly also institutions
#10 Important to mention national but “independently verified” certification schemes
#14 you propose to stay with the traditional breakdown of disturbances (fire, biotic, abiotic), as measured in previous FRAs. This is probably the most robust solution, although it does not address the question of how much disturbance is part of normal ecosystem processes and how much is “damage”. This will vary strongly by ecosystem and whether the forest in question is managed or not, and how.
#15 you suggest dropping this because of the problems of definition. But is this politically possible given that global forest target 1.3 includes a commitment to “restore degraded forests”?
#16 You suggest an alternative indicator Number of people in [extreme] poverty living in forest areas, which reflects global forest target 2.1 (Extreme poverty for all forest dependent people is eradicated). Extreme poverty is defined as living under $1.25/day. You rightly point out the difficulty of interpreting the numbers which will emerge when you point out that decreasing numbers might not be the result of successful policies but rather due to migration of people to areas outside forests. I have a lot of sympathy with this approach.
#17 you suggest focusing only on public financing of SFM. However, global forest target 4.2 refers to “Forest-related financing from all sources at all levels, including public (national, bilateral, multilateral and triangular), private and philanthropic financing”, which sets an ambitious target. In fact, private financing, notably by forest owners themselves, is probably the major source of SFM financing, at least in those countries with significant private forest ownership.
#18 The debate is open as to whether to include wood energy or not (see other posts)
Thank you for your comments, and in particular bringing the discussion back to the precise high level commitments we are meant to monitor, which I take as the Global Forest Goals and Targets, the SDG forest-related indicators, the Aichi targets, UNCCD and UNFCCC. I am working on a systematic cross reference between these goals and the Global Core Set, for the Expert Consultation which might help decisions. You also identify two of the most challenging topics livelihoods/extreme poverty and food security, both of which still pose major challenges. I hope the CPF will be able to address these challenges in the near future as an interagency approach is necessary for this type of issue. We (the forest “community”) will indeed not look good if we are unable to back up our claims that forests are important for food security and livelihoods with hard facts. This implies not only agreeing on concepts and methods, but carrying out surveys in a significant number of counties before, say, 2019.
Thank you for your comments, and especially for the news that FSC and PEFC are working together to fix an annoying statistical/analytical problem. The two organisations were the only people able to fix this, so we all thank you.
As regards whether or not to include certification as part of the Global Core Set, there have been quite intense discussions (centred on the issues you mention) not only in forest circles, but also at the Interagency and Expert Group (IAEG) responsible for the SDG indicators, in particular 15.2.1 Progress towards sustainable forest management. At present the share of certified forest is one of the subcomponents of this compound indicator. As long as that is the case, it would probably be unwise for the Global Core Set to diverge from the SDG indicator.
You make an important point about the general line, and the need for balance. And I agree that biodiversity and NWFP are not well covered – chiefly because we couldn’t find anything that worked. This has been picked up by quite a lot of contributors. However, the scope is not only the Global Forest Goals and Targets, but also forest-relevant parts of other instruments, notably Agenda 2030, the Aichi targets (biodiversity again!) and UNCCD as well as, to a certain extent UNFCCC. Given that we hope for a rather small core set, these big guns rather squeeze the list.
On your detailed comments:
#5 “forestry and logging” is the (rather old-fashioned) term used in the international classifications. I agree industry should be included as well as other forest related jobs (conservation, education, research, tourism related to forests) and the informal/subsistence economy. All of these present quite big technical/statistical challenges!
# 7 Agree we need to mention NFI in a note
#10 The decision on whether or not to include certification will no doubt be taken at a higher level than me! It is worth pointing out however that one of the subcomponents of SDG indicators 15.2.1 “progress towards sustainable forest management” is “Proportion of certified forest area”, and the global core set should probably maintain consistency with the SDGs. While certification is clearly voluntary, and many sustainably managed forests are not certified, certification does have the advantage of identifying very clearly a specific forest area which is sustainably managed, and is able to demonstrate this.
#13 traceability. Yes, I see traceability systems as being the type of system countries are putting in place in response to the EUTR. The main argument for me is that without traceability, we cannot say anything for certain about the share of products from sustainably managed forests (GFG 3.3)
#14. Yes, putting “health and vitality” in the indicator title was a mistake. “% disturbed” is better, although there are still many problems
#15 “Forest degradation” is perhaps the biggest challenge for the group, but, in my view we have a responsibility to try because of the clear commitment in GFG 1.3 and the link to UNCCD.
#17. If not $/ha, what ratio should we use? Perhaps % change. Financial resources in dollars without any context do not have much meaning. Private resources are of course difficult to define and to measure, but again we must try!
#18 I prefer supply, but the big question, given we are trying to streamline, is whether to look at wood energy at all. See my exchange with Ms. Ehlers and others.
#20 OK. No-one has shown any interest in recovery rates
Merci de vos suggestions concernant des produits forestiers non-ligneux qui sont importants dans l’Afrique de l’ouest. Plusieurs participants à cette consultation ont souligné l’importance d’identifier et de suivre ces produits, qui contribuent certainement à la sécurité alimentaire. Cependant, je ne pense pas que ces produits ont leur place dans une liste des indicateurs clé au niveau mondial et qui se réfère aux grands engagements globaux, qui ne font pas mention de produits spécifiques. Cependant, je vous encourage à continuer de souligner l’importance de ces produits et de suivre les tendances de production et de consommation. Il sera certainement nécessaire de faire une agrégation, pour le FRA probablement, de tous les produits forestiers non-ligneux, en termes économiques ou physiques ($, tonnes) pour démontrer l’importance de ce secteur.
Thank you deepening the discussion about wood energy. I very much agree with your description of why it is important, and the way this important topic falls into a “gap” between forest and energy policies (you say “there is not much dialogue between the two sectors”: in Europe, that is quite an understatement – and the energy sector has the financial resources). Wood energy is also an issue where the whole discussion is radically different in developed and developing countries (or even regions within countries).
I would also like an indicator of demand, supply and sustainability of supply for wood energy, but I fear this might be complex in practice as all wood can be burned, and the main tension is often between uses of wood, not total harvest levels. On balance, I agree with your last sentence: that it wood energy may not need to be included in Global Core Set of forest related indicators, but should be carefully monitored at the national level and incorporated into all statements and commitments about policy for forests – and for energy.
Thanks for the list and comments. As you saw, a lot of them build on what was done at the Ottowa workshop.
I like your list, and that you had the courage to slash some surplus. You did remove some indicators linked to high level policy commitments (e.g. on financial resources for SFM and degraded forest), but maybe that is the price to pay for streamlining. That is not for me to decide.
On your specific comments, I have some responses
You prefer absolute measures (e.g. forest area in ha) rather than indicators (e.g. % change in forest area) as the ratios can be calculated from the data supplied. Clearly it is the absolute data which will be supplied to (for instance) FRA, but I do feel that it is necessary to define and agree on a real indicator, with a meaning, and a relationship to stated policy commitments. A set of indicators is not the same as an FRA enquiry.
It would be good to have a better indicator on biodiversity outcomes, but nothing has worked so far.
You are absolutely right that interpretation of the indicator data needs careful analysis, taking account of national circumstances. An indicator set is a powerful tool and needs to be handled with care and respect!
“Employment in forestry and logging” although data are collected for it, is clearly not everything. You propose including employment in sawmills and paper mills (which enlarges the scope of the set). Others have pointed to informal jobs, as well as to forest related tourism, biodiversity conservation, teaching etc.. Another question is what these data mean: we all know SFM provides jobs, but do we want to encourage inefficient use of labour? Is more jobs automatically a good thing?
Good point about subnational stakeholder participation (e.g. Provinces in Canada)
“Long term management plan” was used in FRA 2015, so experience is available
I see traceability systems not so much as an indicator of illegal logging (or the absence of illegal logging) but as a necessary support measure to back up statements about the use of products from sustainably managed forests
More clarity is certainly needed on “% disturbed”. You are quite right that “Forest health and vitality” is a criterion, not an indicator, and should be removed.
I foresee a vigorous discussion about whether or not to include wood energy – which is not specifically mentioned in the high level policy commitments.
The point about “payment for ecosystem services” was that it is a green economy approach. But many agree that it will be very hard to measure or monitor. “Value of wood products” is a more direct measure of one of the economic benefits of SFM
Thank you for your detailed suggestions for an Indian perspective, backed up by hard data.
To start from your suggestions for additions:
A direct measure of biodiversity is indeed missing as it has so far proved impossible to find one which is globally applicable and realistically measurable. Proxies include policy instruments (protected areas, stakeholder participation, certification, all in the draft global set), and in some areas, numbers of species/threatened species, deadwood/hectare. Can we do better?
Many have drawn attention to trees outside the forest, and FRA collects data on them. However, the type and use of TOF varies widely between regions, from food production, to shade in cities etc., so the true meaning of statistics on trees outside the forest has been hard to measure. In the circumstances, is it sufficiently important/meaningful to merit inclusion in the short list f the 15 core indicators?
A few brief reactions to your detailed comments:
#2 Practices do vary very widely on how to define “protected areas”. However, guidelines are available, notably from IUCN.
#3 At a national or global level measurements in kg would lead to excessive detail
#4 There are indeed many problems in defining “designated” objectives in multi-function forests, which have been discussed at length in the context of FRA. In India, it may well be OK to use “Forest area (in ha.) under watershed management plan”.
#5 “Employment” is indeed difficult to define, and it is hard to set the boundary lines for what is covered. “Employment” is defined by ILO, but does it include everyone, such as the groups you mention. We should follow the international guidelines where they exist, even though many groups might be left out.
#9 I agree that “proportion of area” is more meaningful than area in hectares.
#12 I also agree that we need a ratio here, not just an absolute figure. Illegal logging should be included in removals, but, for obvious reasons, is difficult to report.
#14 Degradation” and “disturbance” are not quite the same, and both present problems of concept and definition. There is a high level policy commitment to halting forest degradation while disturbance is a part of any ecosystem, so perhaps we should give priority to degradation – but how defined?
#16 Thank you for the data on India which clearly show the importance of NWFP for livelihoods. It is a big challenge to “zoom out” from local and national levels to find something which is usable at the global level, because of the multiplicity of products, each with its own measurement system.
Thank you very much for positive suggestions on forests’ contribution to food security, which is definitely covered inadequately by the Global Core Set, especially as Global Forest Target 2.3 specifically refers to “the contribution of forests and trees to food security”. The question is actually “can we supply meaningful information, in a simple indicator, for use at the global level, in the short term?” This is not my area of expertise, but the indicators you propose seem to be more the building blocks than the big picture: they are all measurable at the survey level, but can they be scaled up to the national level, and how do you combine them to cast light on the question of how much forests contribute to food security? You say “Without better, systematic/ globally comparable data we will remain unable to accurately estimate the contribution of forest foods to diet quality, nutrition and food security”. (Incidentally, it seems to me that forests’ contribution to food security is wider than forest foods.) To me, this means that, regretfully, at this stage, we cannot propose an indicator on food security for the Global Core Set, but that work is urgently needed, in the right circles, to generate such an indicator with supporting methodology and definitions. Perhaps such work could start from your proposals?
Your “rantings” are very welcome, and remind us of the necessity of clear definitions – and how the choice of definitions can strongly influence the meaning of the information.
You (along with others) ask the most important question “What are we trying to track?” In my view, we have to be careful when addressing the Global Core Set, as this is not FRA nor a free standing set of criteria and indicators: rather it is a streamlining of what needs to be tracked to monitor whether we are fulfilling the commitments made at the global policy level. This is broader and more inter-sectoral than “pure” forest sector monitoring, and is not itself a data collection system, but a framework for data collection systems, and a clarification of the needs of the users of those systems.
Furthermore, the Global Core Set is being built in an international area where there has been long and detailed discussion over many years: so we must avoid reinventing the wheel, and calling into question the many compromises agreed over the years. Thus on your questions on the definition of forest (the corner stone of the whole building), we have no choice but to use the existing FRA definition, whatever its well-known shortcomings and, as you point out, ambiguities (but nothing better has been found yet!). This approach is even explicitly endorsed by the SDGs.
I agree with you that “more work is needed” on a number of issues and definitions, including “degraded forest”, forest dependent people” “ecosystem services” “designated and managed”, “health and vitality”. All of these should be addressed in the follow-up to the agreement on the Global Core Set.
Finally, thank you for the remark that we are all dependent on forests in one way or another, which is true.
A lively discussion continues, with many points of view and nearly all parts of the world participating. I have counted 18 contributors, some representing groups and some contributing more than once. I hope this continues.
Some of the debate has been quite detailed, but I would pick out the following, in addition to what I reported in my first overview.
For any indicator set, it is crucial to clearly articulate the objectives. For the Global Core Set, these are to be derived from the high level policy commitments, notably the SDGs, the Aichi targets and the newly approved Global Forest Goals and Targets. The forest community has an obligation to put itself in a position to supply information on progress towards the goals identified by policy makers, and the Global Core Set should streamline this process.
Should we have an indicator on wood energy? (It is not actually mentioned in the high level commitments. SDG 7.2.1 refers to renewable energy as whole.)
For policy instruments, it is not enough just to look at the existence of an instrument, but also its effectiveness. But how to do this in a context of international indicators?
There seems to be consensus on dropping the indicators on recovery rates for wood and paper and on payment for ecosystem services
On the other hand, some support maintenance of the indicator on carbon stocks and flows – or at least net GHG sink/source. Otherwise it might appear that forests are not contributing to climate change mitigation. Indicator 3 on above ground biomass does not cover the whole topic, it seems.
The situation and viewpoints of Low Forest Cover Countries must also be reflected
The indicator on livelihoods (16) might be adapted to reflect the commitment to eradicate extreme poverty for all forest dependent people (Global Forest Target 2.1).
Indicator 7 (ODA) could be merged with indicator 11 (finance from all sources for SFM)
Doubts are expressed about how to formulate indicator 14 on forest health and vitality, but most seem to favour its maintenance whatever the problems.
Finally, the consultation must end on 21 May (this Sunday), as I should transmit the results to an Expert Consultation starting on 12 June.
You are of course right about the laws of nature – although observing the climate change debate leads me to think that some policy makers are perfectly happy to destroy the planet’s ecosystems whatever the scientists say!
What you are proposing can very well progress in parallel with the Global Core Set, as they are quite different enterprises. Nor do I disagree with many of your suggestions, most of which seem excellent, and I have no desire to “rebut” any of them. My problem is that for an indicator set to be operational at the international, or national, level, there must be a broad consensus of all stakeholders. The ultimate responsibility for decision lies with the Governments which represent their peoples. At the international level, these Governments must also seek consensus, which is a complex and sensitive process. The result is negotiated texts, notably in our case, Agenda 2030 (the SDGs), the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biodiversity and the Global Forest Goals and Targets set out in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests. The first and third of these were formally approved by the General Assembly of the UN and the second by the CBD COP. The forest sector as whole, as part of the international community, has a responsibility to supply information to these policy makers in the form which they will find useful. This is the context for the Global Core Set, which, perhaps unfortunately, does not have the freedom to start a new process, ignoring the discussions which have taken place between hundreds or thousands of people, over 25 years – even if, from time to time, we disagree as individuals with what has been agreed. None of this prevents any person or group from creating their own structure of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, starting from first principles, as you propose.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution to the discussion
Thanks a lot for the detailed and constructive comments. I respond to them below
General comments: I strongly support the selection of only up to 15 indicators into a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators.
Thanks (although I notice that, like everyone else you are keener to add than to delete indicators!)
Attention should be paid to the fact that the selection of indicators should give a representative, worldwide relevant picture of forests and forestry but should also be of interest for related sectors like biodiversity, climate change, energy or bioeconomy.
Yes indeed – but also the SDG process, which incorporates them all
Therefore, the core set should contain indicators which are also part of indicator sets of related sectors like indicators used within the CBD, UNFCCC or UNCCD which have also indicator related reporting obligations.
#2 and 4: I recommend to keep the indicator on protected forest areas separated from the indicator on protective forest areas (proposal of another expert), as protected areas are a main CBD indicator for Assessing Progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target and the indicator on “forest area within protected areas” directly contributes to this.
I fully agree on the necessity of using the same wording as other sectors to improve consistency
#3 and 1: Concerning the reporting of above-ground biomass stock in forests in tonnes instead of tonnes/ha, is a need to determine if we want to agree now on the measurement units which should be requested from the data providers or on the measurement units which should be officially reported/communicated. I do not mind if related data is requested in tonnes. However, it should be reported in above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes/ha) as otherwise the comprehension will be limited (Comparison with national figures). I would propose to negotiate measurement unit which will be used to present the underlying data. This is also relevant for indicator 1 on forest area. Fine to request information on forest area as proportion of total land area, but of interest for the sector, the broad public and the politicians is the forest area net change rate, which should be part of the information presented.
I think there was some confusion in the Task Force between the formulation of the indicators (which should have a direction and meaning) and the problems of data collection. The latter are the concern of FRA or other operations, and not directly the concern of the Global Core Set. Clearly the data will be collected in absolute terms (ha, m3, tons etc.), but the indicator says how these data should be put in a context. For #3, which I see as monitoring the drain/increment ratio, what is important is the change, as if drain exceeds increment and/or there is deforestation, the above ground biomass will decrease. In this context, it is probably better to lok at change in tons, rather than change in tons/ha. If the latter is monitored, deforested land simply disappears from the equation. You could even have an increase in tons/ha in a deforestation situation (if the deforested area had below average biomass/ha)
#5 Employment in forestry and logging: I would rather propose to use employment in the forest sector, as the forest sector is defined by the statistical offices. Then further divide the data accordingly to statistical subcategories.
I used the term “forestry and logging” as that is used by the international ISIC classification. However, it does exclude many jobs which relevant to the forest sector, such as subsistence farming as well as tourism, research, nature conservation etc. We should perhaps refer to employment in the forest sector, even if we are forced back to basic data on “forestry and logging”.
#13 Existence of a traceability system for wood products. This indicator is without underlying measurement unit difficult to comment on. If it there are only yes/no options per country, then it seems rather meaningless. It needs to consider at least different ownership structures. Would be helpful to have the possibility to comment on the underlying explanatory notes as well.
It is true that a yes/no question does not give much possibility for differentiation. My idea was that we need to link sustainably managed forest with consumption of products, in line with the commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests (global forest target 3.3) (unclear whether the commitment refers to production or to consumption). Perhaps we should express the traceability in volume terms (“volume of wood products consumed which can demonstrate they are from sustainable sources”, or similar)?
#14 Forest health and vitality: Should be part of the set, as indicators on forest health and vitality are part of all regional C&I processes and data is available in FRA. Concentrate on forest area damaged (by multiple factors) and separate data on forest area damaged by fire, as this is an emerging issue.
“Forest health and vitality” appears in all regional C&I sets, and the 7 thematic elements. However, I have just noticed that the Global Forest Goals and Targets refer to “resilience” and “adaptive capacity” which are not quite the same. There are also the well-known problems of measuring damage or disturbance (multiple causes, combined effects, damage v. normal ecosystem processes). All in all, I cannot really see a global core set which does not address health and vitality in some way!
#15 Area of degraded forest: Should be part of the set and changed into green, as degraded forests are an emerging issue due to climate change, particularly through draught, heat, erosion. Degraded land area is also an indicator under UNCCD.
Fully agree, especially as there are several high level commitments to halt forest or land degradation. However, we still need a workable definition of “degraded forest”!
#18: Share of wood based energy in total primary energy consumption…: should be part of the set to show the sectors contribution to a green/bioeconomy.
That was my thinking, but several contributors have questioned it (and we do need to reduce the number of indicators a bit). I looked at the high level commitments and found no reference at all to wood or biomass energy. The SDGs (7.2.1) refer to renewable energies, without further detail. It would be good to have more views n this.
#21 Carbon stocks and changes in forest land: Should be definitely moved back to the set as carbon stocks and carbon stock changes are an important UNFCCC indicator and we should show the forest sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation. Concerning the comment about deviating UNFCCC and FRA data I was informed that the reviewers of the Greenhouse-Gas-Inventories double check validity with the FRA data. Even so that data harmonisation is often necessary the indicator should definitely be part of the Global Core Set due to its global importance in the climate change debate.
I also would find it strange to have a global core set without any specific mention of forests’ role in climate change mitigation. Nor am I worried about differences between FRA and UNFCCC processes, as we should not exclude policy relevant information for reasons of data consistency. However, the indicator might be streamlined (bearing in mind that carbon stocks are implicitly addressed in #3) to something like “Net GHG sink/source of forests”, which would capture the effect of deforestation on the climate as well as the forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation, where this occurs.
Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments.
I fully agree that it is very challenging to devise indicator sets to suit very diverse conditions. As a consequence, a global core set, which must address global commitments made in a variety of high level fora, is bound to lack specific detail, and needs to be complemented by other indicators valid for particular regions, countries or ecosystems. The aim is to provide information in a form which can be used in the global policy dialogue – not only by forest sector experts and policy makers, but also by policy makers for other sectors and for sustainable development as a whole. This objective should be borne in mind when making the tradeoffs which are inevitable in agreeing a global core set.
As regards your specific comments (separate post), you agree with several other commentators on the challenge of defining “degraded” and the concepts underlying “% disturbed”. You also agree with others that recovery rates for paper and wod are outside the scope of SFM, and on the challenges of employment data. On carbon stocks and flows, you are right that colecting data is difficult and expensive. However, the UNFCCC has developed detailed guidelines on GHG accounting, which have been widely used by signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. The point here is that forest inventory people should work closely together with those responsible for GHG accounting, to achieve useful results (even if there are sometimes tensions between the two approaches) .
Thank you for your comments based on real experience.
The indicators you identify are all of great interest. In fact some of them are already included in the pan-European set (species composition, naturalness of forest, silvicultural system, – not as detailed as you suggest – age structure, damage). A few of them (naturalness, disturbance, and management objective, with slightly different wordings) are in FRA 2015.
Unfortunately we are trying to reduce (not increase) the number of indicators and link each of them to the global objectives (SDG, Strategic Plan, Aichi Targets), none of which, to my knowledge, specifically mentions the indicators you list, with the exception of the commitment to reduce illegal logging/improve forest governance (addressed - weakly, I am afraid - by indicators 13 traceability/illgal logging and 15 degraded forests). I also fear that some of the indicators you mention might prove very challenging to measure at the global level, especially in countries with a high proportion of natural forests, with very different approaches to silviculture.
So I believe your very interesting suggestions would probably be more appropriate to the European regional context, not the Global Core Set.
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions.
Here are my reactions
GCS1 I agree that the significance of changes in area will depend on circumstances. Indicators do not provide objective assessments of “good” and “bad” trends.
GCS 2. As you say, “protected” is not legally defined. However there is a lot of experience, in FRA and IUCN of how it should be interpreted. In this matter, I think we should follow precedent.
GCS3 For reporting purposes, tons and tons/ha are both quite easy. However, this indicator should, in my view, focus on change in growing stock, as a reduction in growing stock in most cases implies overuse of the resource (I know Switzerland is an exception as growing stock is at too high a level).
GCS4 I agree that it is difficult to identify the importance of the protection functions of forests
GCS 5 With “forest related jobs” (not quite the same as “employment in forestry and logging”), it seems to me the challenge is to agree on what the meaning of the indicator is. More jobs can mean a healthy sector, or inefficient labour practices.
GCS 6 Yes, an explanatory note will be needed when information is collected.
GCS 7 Good point about need to define "scientifically sound"
GCS 9 I agree that definitions and interpretation of what constitutes a “long term management plan” is vital. FRA does have experience in this respect, so that can be the base.
GCS 10 You touch on a sensitive spot when you express concern about using certification as a surrogate for sustainability. I sympathise with your point of view. However, forest laws are not well implemented in many countries, and certification provides a visible and comprehensive guarantee of sustainability, which follows the wood through the chain-of-custody systems, even if many sustainably managed forests are not certified. For many people outside the sector, certification is the only way of reaching sustainability: some people proposed area of certified forest as the only indicator for sustainable forest management! In any case, at present certified area is in the SDG indicator for progress towards SFM, so it would be hard to exclude it now.
GCS 11 Yes. Several people have proposed merging this indicator (on ODA alone) with indicator 17 on all financial resources for SFM. This is probably a good idea, even though defining and measuring the other financial resources will be challenging.
GCS 13 You say a traceability system is often not needed. But is not the idea of traceability behind chain-of-custody systems and policy instruments like the EUTR and the Lacey Act, which are increasingly important everywhere? So the concept is applicable to all countries, not only those with an illegal logging problem. There is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests: I do not see how this can be done without some sort of traceability.
GCS 14 I agree with your remarks about defining and measuring “damage” or “disturbance”
GCS 15 Defining degradation is indeed a major challenge. The FRA 2015 approach (partial canopy cover loss) is not 100% satisfactory. But again, there are high level commitments to halt forest degradation so a means must be found to monitor it
Thank you for introducing the perspective of Low Forest Cover Countries to the discussion.
I believe most of the indicators are fully applicable to LFCCs – it is the interpretation of the results which will differ between countries. In particular the results of the monitoring might be able to support a case for increasing forest cover in LFCCs.
Trees outside the forest are especially important in LFCCs (although their importance is increasingly recognised elsewhere). How do you think they could be addressed in the Global Core Set (bearing in mind the need for a streamlined set, and links to high level policy commitments)?
The Global Core Set has focused on monitoring policy commitments. So while research must, of course, be the foundation of the measurement, and the methods used must be scientifically sound, guidance should come from policy makers as to priorities for monitoring. So I see no need for extra information - in the Global Core Set itself - on links between the indicators and research. Or have I misunderstood your concerns?
3 I agree tonnes/ha is a better indicator than just tonnes
7 FRA normally collects information on date of survey. I suppose that it is part of being “scientifically sound” to be recent!
8 Agree to propose addition of “effective” to the indicator – although few respondents would admit their NFP was not “effective”.
13 I agree that existence of a traceability system is critical – and easier to measure than illegal logging and trade. Furthermore, there is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests. I think it is impossible to monitor this without the existence of some sort of traceability system.
15 Thanks for the suggestions of contacts on measurement of degraded forest
16 You say, rightly, that this indicator is “vague”. However Global Forest Goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty[1] for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”, which is a very precise and ambitious commitment. Perhaps the indicator should follow the wording of the commitment: “Number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty”? In my view, the topic of extreme poverty of forest dependent people cannot be omitted from the Global Core Set.
18 (wood energy) the fundamental problem is that in some (developing) countries, policy makers want to reduce wood energy (because of air pollution, fuel poverty, overharvesting etc.), while elsewhere the emphasis is on expanding renewable energy, including wood biomass from sustainable sources. Given the generally weak data quality, and the difficulty of giving meaning to this indicator, not to mention the fact that wood energy is not mentioned in any of the global commitments[2], I am inclined to think this indicator might be dropped.
19 I agree that the time is not right to include an indicator on payment for ecosystem services.
20 You recommend to drop an indicator of recovery rates for wood and paper, and I have seen no strong support for this indicator, partly because it is seen as being outside the scope of a forest focused indicator.
21 You recommend to drop the indicator on carbon stocks and flows. I am rather reluctant as two of the Global Forest Targets (1.2 and 2.5) refer to carbon stocks and mitigation/adaptation of climate change. In my view, the key question is whether indicator 2 (above ground biomass stocks) is adequate to monitor forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation. As it stands, indicator 21, as the Task Force said, has too many elements. Could it be streamlined to refer to GHG sink/source of forests??
Thanks again for your contribution to the ongoing discussion
Kit Prins
Facilitator
[1] Defined in the SDGs as people living on less than $1.25 a day
[2] SDG 7.2.1 refers to renewable energy, without specifying wood or biomass
Thank you for your clear and interesting contribution, and for stressing that indicators only have meaning when they are in a context of policy objectives. Thank you also for reminding us how difficult it has proved to define sustainable forest management in an objective way. (My own favourite definition is the one in Helsinki Resolution H1 of the MCPFE, but there is now a global definition approved by the General Assembly) In practice, SFM has been defined implicitly by the various sets of criteria and indicators negotiated at the regional level. The key word here is “negotiated”: although many processes started with the type of clarity you display, confusion increased as delegates compared their own specific national circumstances to the emerging texts, and complained vigorously when their own situation was not fully reflected (or their national reality looked bad according to the emerging indicators). The situation has become more complex with the high level policy commitments which have an influence on the forest sector, notably biodiversity and climate, as well as desertification. Even wider commitments (first the MDGs, than Agenda 2030 and the SDGs) have put forest issues in the context of sustainable development. Thus it is no longer possible, at the international level, to start with a clean sheet of paper and draw up a set of indicators from first principles. On the other hand, we now have a lot of formal high level policy commitments, which, taken together, provide direction for the Global Core Set. The three most important high level commitments in this context are the Global Forest Goals and Targets in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, Agenda 2030 and its forest related SDG indicators, and the Aichi Targets of the CBD. There is overlap and duplication between these commitments, which are “negotiated text” with all that implies of complexity and sensitivity. Nevertheless there are some quite specific quantifiable commitments, including to increase forest area by 3% worldwide, and that 17% of terrestrial ecosystems should be conserved for biodiversity.
I am afraid that to “redesign the whole system” as you recommend would be to attempt to replace the carefully negotiated high level policy commitments with a new system which depended only on the intellectual rigour of the designers. Such an exercise would not be supported widely. The draft Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators should be seen firmly in the context of the high level policy commitments, and build on the experience of the global (and regional) forest dialogue of the last 25 years.
You also question the usefulness of the so-called “qualitative indicators” (in fact indicators of the legal policy and institutional framework, the seventh “thematic element”). In many cases, indicators of outcomes (for instance a change in forest area, growing stock or biodiversity) have serious drawbacks as tools to guide policy: often the outcomes have multiple causes, so weakening the links with policy, and, in the forest sector, policy changes often need many years to have any effect at all. It is established practice in sets of criteria and indicators to combine indicators of outcomes with indicators of the legal, policy and institutional framework. Neither type is adequate by itself, but taken together they can be useful. Of course, it would be good to incorporate some measure of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the policy measures, but that can be hard in an intergovernmental context.
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive contribution, and especially for generating an alternative set of indicators.
However, there may be a misunderstanding, due to my failure to explain fully the context of this Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which are based on the experience of regional and national sets of criteria and indicators, and took them all into account, after carrying out interviews with many major players. The Global Core Set does not aim to start from a blank sheet and first principles, as that is no longer possible, after the lengthy negotiations and compromises which have taken place, inside the forest sector and outside it. We did in fact start with the seven thematic elements which you list, but these have now been relegated in importance by high level policy commitments, notably the UN Strategic Plan for Forests and its Global Forest Goals and Targets, along with the Agenda 2030 and the SDG targets, some of which refer to forests, and the Aichi biodiversity targets. These state, at a high policy level, what are the targets, and therefore what should be monitored. The Global Core Set aims to synthesize, on the basis of these approved targets, and the forest sector’s experience with criteria and indicators, what should be measured, to enable coordinated reporting, and indicate clearly to those responsible for data collection where the priorities should be. The list as it stands is organised by the colour codes used in the process (maintain/further work/delete), which has unfortunately concealed its inner structure. I hope this can be remedied before the core set is finalised. So the draft Global Core Set may not be theoretically sound, but it reflects the state of play in the global forest dialogue as of 2017.
I do not understand your reference to not reducing the reporting burden: data on all the indicators you mention (5, 8, 12 and 15) are easily available of good quality through the FRA. (Others do of course present considerable reporting challenges).
Indicator 14. It is true that the first half is a criterion, but the second half (“% of forest area disturbed”) is a proper indicator. Thank you for pointing this out: I think it can be fixed.
The overlap between 17 and 11 arose because the global dialogue at first focused on ODA (11) and then widened to “resources from all sources” (17). At present data on ODA are more easily available and better structured, and so easier to handle. However, I agree that there is a lot of overlap and we should try to combine them, bringing together data of different quality and different sources to generate a broader picture.
I do not have the possibility to comment on every one of your very coherent indicator set, which follows the “classical” structure of many regional indicator sets. I would make a few comments:
It appears to be only concerned with the forest sector and not open to cross sectoral issues such as livelihoods of forest dependent people.
Some of the indicators would be difficult to quantify and aggregate (“structure and staffing”, “existence and implementation of procedures”), although the importance of these aspects is undeniable.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that forests can be classified as production, protection, or biodiversity forests, whereas in practice, there are multiple functions and complex, sometimes mutually incompatible, management objectives. Successive FRAs have encountered problems when they tried to break forest down by management objective.
“Equitable sharing of the costs and benefits” is an important concept and mentioned both in the SDGs and the Aichi Targets (in the context of genetic resources only). However, I am not sure how this could be monitored in an objective and comparable way without much preliminary discussion.
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.
Thank you for your suggestion, which reflects the content of several regional indicator sets.
I agree that economic and social aspects should be better covered in the Global Core Set. Furthermore, data are available (this is tracked by FRA). The problem arises with the interpretation of the results. In fact the share of the forest sector in GDP is not determined by the forest sector itself, but by the rest of the economy. There are many cases of dynamic and expanding forest sectors in countries with strong economies, where the share of the forest sector in the national GDP is small – and shrinking. This is due to the fact that other parts of the economy (services, information technology, etc. etc.) are much larger and growing faster than the forest sector (typically the forest sector accounts for less than 1% of GDP). There is little that forest sector policy makers can, or should, do about this.
Perhaps the economic dimension could be strengthened by an indicator of “Gross value added by the forest sector as ratio to forest area “(in $/ha). This would also have measurement problems, notably the omission of forest related income not included in the “forestry and logging” part of national accounts (forest related tourism, teaching, research, subsistence livelihoods etc.), but, it seems to me, could be a good start.
Thanks again. What do you, and others contributors, think of my suggestion?
Thank you for your suggestion (and sorry about the delay in replying to you).
As regards the definition of forest used by FAO, SDG and others, no-one claims it is perfect, which is not surprising given the wide variety of circumstances and points of view. However, it has emerged from more than 20 years of discussion and negotiation, and is probably the best possible at present. So everyone should stick with it for the time being.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by “productivity for tree and biomass products”. If you mean net annual increment or another measure of forest productivity in terms of wood growth, I agree this would be desirable – and this measure is often used, for instance in the pan-European indicator set. The problem here is that many countries with a high proportion of natural forests (including Canada) do not measure increment, and could not supply the information. From a (wood-focussed) sustainability point of view, the important thing is that drain (harvests and natural losses) is not higher than increment. At present, it appears not to be possible to measure the different components of this equation for all, or even most, countries. However, the net outcome of this interaction is changes in forest biomass: if drain is higher than increment, growing stock decreases; if not, growing stock is stable or increases. This is covered by indicator 3. So the productivity question is covered indirectly.
UNFF12 in New York last week noted the process to develop the Global Core Set and asked the CPF to present the final set to UNFF13 next year. Eva Muller of FAO urged people to participate in our online consultation. So this consultation should have consequences in the real world!
The main general points I have noted are:
The Global Core Set of forest related indicators should be composed of meaningful indicators, not simply lists of parameters.
Biodiversity seems to be under-represented in the list – probably because of the difficulty of measuring outcomes objectively
An indicator of livelihoods of forest dependent people should be included, but is very difficult to formulate properly.
Likewise coverage of non-wood products is weak
Should we have more “economic” indicators (markets, prices etc.)?
Can we find a workable definition for “degraded forest”?
As a comment on the above, we must also avoid inflation on the list, which should not exceed 10-15 indicators. That means we should be deleting, not adding indicators. This is difficult as no-one likes cutting important topics. And every topic is someone’s favourite, in which they have invested time and thought. As Yeats said, in another context, “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams”.
There is a good case for merging indicators 2 (protected areas) and 4 (areas managed for soil and water protection) as in many cases the regimes are similar and there is a lot of overlap. Most areas protected for biodiversity also protect against erosion. Also in many countries, all forests are managed for protection of soil and water (see the latest study on State of Europe’s Forests, where several countries point out that all forests are meant to provide protection for soil and water). The problem here is that such a merger leaves one of the seven thematic elements (on the protective functions of forests) without its own dedicated indicator. Is that acceptable? What do the contributors think?
Thank you for these suggestions from a non-wood perspective, which is unfortunately quite rare in these discussions!
Here are my comments
I agree we should try to include non-timber forest jobs, where possible. Unfortunately most statistical data are collected according to standard employment classifications which refer to “forestry and logging”. We should try to move beyond this – also to jobs related to services, such as teaching, recreation, tourism, conservation etc. which are clearly forest related (when they occur in forests) but usually classified outside “forestry and logging”.
We should indeed include academia and science in indicator 8.
Indicator 12 (wood harvested per worker, in the version agreed by the OLI) was an attempt to address the issue of productivity and efficient use of resources, which is stressed in the green economy discussion, but has not met with a very enthusiastic response. The sustainability of harvest levels – obviously crucial – should be addressed by indicator 3, trends in biomass per hectare, as this would fall if harvests are too high
I am not sure about your reference to indicator 14 (forest health and vitality), which at present has no subheadings a and b. Perhaps you could clarify?
Do I understand that you propose as definition of “forest dependent people” those for whom at least 70% of livelihood comes from forest related goods and services? This is a clear and measurable definition – although it would certainly take time to collect comparable data worldwide. At present, there is no such definition agreed. Here is something I wrote on the question in the background paper for the OLI:
"Forest dependent people The second Global Objective refers to “livelihoods of forest dependent people” and it is clear that many millions of people, mostly very poor, are concerned. However the term of “forest dependent people” is not defined in FRA 2015 and it is uncertain whether the dependency refers to economic factors, residence, share of income or ecological dependency. Given the widespread poverty in these communities, and the importance of subsistence farming, it is also unlikely that comprehensive statistical coverage will be possible. A recent article[1] considers that “there are substantial divergences in who the term refers to, what each of its constituent words mean, and how many forest-dependent people there are globally” and proposes an 18 dimension taxonomy for analysis. The authors point out that “it is not intuitively obvious that either increasing or decreasing forest dependence in any of these dimensions is a policy objective that necessarily benefits the people in question or that is always desirable” Before correspondents are asked to provide information, clear guidance on these matters should be prepared."
We seem to need an informed discussion on the subject of an indicator for forest dependent people. Contributions are welcome!
Kit Prins
Moderator
[1] Who are forest-dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions Peter Newton, Daniel C. Miller, Mugabi Augustine Ateenyi Byenkya, Arun Agrawal. Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 388–395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.032
Thank you very much for these comments which describe accurately the difference between real indicators and simple parameters or data series. Given the huge variety in different circumstances, it is indeed not enough just to provide data, even on a per hectare basis, without giving the indicator a real meaning. There will always be countries with large forest areas and high biomass stocks per hectare, whose forests are not being managed sustainably, and others with small forest area or low biomass/ha which are sustainably managed. I agree with you that if we are looking for meaning, we should focus (for many of the core indicators) on change over time. The absolute data for area or biomass may not tell us much, but a reduction, either in forest area or biomass per hectare, is a strong signal to look closer at the situation. There are circumstances where a reduction may be acceptable (e.g. average biomass per hectare may fall in the early stages of afforestation), but in general a reduction is a warning signal for analysts. (Incidentally, it is not possible to say that while a reduction, for instance of area or growing stock, is “bad”, an increase is “good”: sustainably managed forests may be stable in area and growing stock, as no increase is possible or desirable)
Your remarks bring out the fact that the Global Core Set should contain meaningful, policy relevant indicators: it is not a questionnaire to collect data (although it does, of course depend on reliable data notably those supplied by FRA).
Thank you for your suggestions – and for broadening the discussion on the topics to be covered by the Global Core Set. I agree that economic factors like prices, markets, government spending and use of forest resources are critical to our understanding of and policy making for the forest sector. It seems to me quite unrealistic to look only at what happens inside the forest area, and ignore what goes on elsewhere. However these areas, notably prices and markets, have not been addressed in depth by most of the discussion on sustainable forest management. It would be interesting to have the opinion of other contributors on whether this type of factor should be included in a Global Core Set.
On the detail of your suggestions: 4 and 5 (government spending and fire damage) are included in the draft set, as part of indicators 17 (financial resources from all sources) and 14 (all damage/disturbance).
You suggest indicators 14 (health and vitality) and 15 (degraded forest) should be combined. I addressed this in my reply to Mr. Houngbo: the two are not quite the same, but both are difficult to measure at the national level. The issue of forest degradation occurs in the high level goals and targets, so should probably be maintained. It is clearly of the highest policy importance to combat and monitor forest degradation. Do you, or other participants, have suggestions for a robust way of defining and measuring “forest degradation”?
You suggest a new indicator on forest biodiversity. It is true that the lack of a biodiversity indicator is a weakness. The draft core set contains several proxies for forest biodiversity, mostly focused on policy instruments to promote biodiversity: protected areas (3), policies supporting SFM (6), stakeholder participation (8), management plan (9), certification (10), payments for ecosystem services (19). There is nothing concrete on outcomes, chiefly because no practical way of monitoring forest biodiversity at the national level, in most countries of the world, has emerged from the numerous discussions which have taken place. Perhaps a major open debate should be launched on this topic (possibly for the next global core set of forest related indicators)?
Thank you for these perceptive and constructive comments.
Here are my comments, set out between yours
I think the indicators 4, 5, 8, and 17 can be deleted and replaced by the “Percentage of forest under sustainable management” (say the usefulness of the forest for the environment and people)
Indeed, the main objective of many international efforts, notably SDG 15.2.1, is to monitor the area of forests sustainably managed. The challenge is to define and measure this area, given the wide variety of national conditions. Certification by itself is not sufficient as while most certified forests are sustainably managed, many sustainably managed forests are not certified. Also, “legal” is not always the same as “sustainable”. For SDG 15.2.1, an approach is being developed which combines essentially indicators 2, 3, 9, 10 (biodiversity conservation, biomass stock, long term management plan, area certified). The UN Statistical Office working group on this is advancing fast. It is clear that the Global Core Set of forest-related indicators would have to be adapted to be in conformity with the agreed SDG indicators in this respect.
2. The indicators 14 and 15 are approximately the same. We can just maintain the indicator 15;
They are indeed similar, but there are still differences. Mostly 14 refers to natural damage (pests, wind, fire, game etc.), while 15 refers to forests which have lost most of their ability to supply forest functions, often through human agency, notably overcutting. The term “degraded forest” occurs often in the official texts, but no-one has yet devised an agreed objective way of measuring it at a global level. Hence “more work is needed”, as we cannot ignore the many references to forest degradation in the high level documents. Do you or any other readers have ideas, to supply a waterproof definition of “degraded forest”?
3. The indicator 16 is not pertinent and should be difficult to establish;
I think it is pertinent (Global forest goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”), but it is extremely hard to implement, for the reasons set out in the task force comments. Should we give up on measuring poverty among “forest dependent people”?
4. Instead of defining the indicator 19 like that, I propose to use the “Percentage change in Total Economic Value (TEV)”
This indicator was meant to focus on the specific issue of payment for ecosystem services, which is seen as a core part of the emerging green economy, and a correction of the exclusive focus on economic value. However, as the task force says, this aspect is probably “not ready for the GCS of indicators” – which at present is too long, and should contain only indicators which are ready to go in every way. I would like to collect data on Total economic Value of forests world-wide, but it could be difficult
5) I think you can add these two indicators:
- Forest biodiversity level (the Shannon diversity index can be used for that) to show the richness of the forest;
It has been a long struggle to monitor biodiversity at the national level in a standard way, and so far only proxies, (e.g. area protected or endangered species) have been used. The Shannon diversity index seems to have quite rigorous data needs, and to be more adapted to particular forests than to national level monitoring. Have I misunderstood?
- Percentage change in species under overexploitation (overuse) in order to indicate the challenge for the forest restoration.
I agree it would be good to measure change in species diversity. This has been tried in Europe, but proved surprisingly difficult as national level knowledge of trends by species is not very good. We should perhaps revisit this.
السيد Christopher Prins
Synthesis of online consultation on Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators
Dear all,
Over the consultation as a whole, there were 34 individuals or groups who contributed, sometimes more than once, representing all regions and many different specialities. In addition, the webpage of the consultation received around 1,300 page views over the 3 weeks of the consultation. This clearly demonstrates a high level of interest in the question. Most of the contributions were quite comprehensive and all showed that the contributor had thought in depth about the issues
It is fair to say that everyone supported the basic concept of the Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which should be short, comprehensive and balanced, and help the forest sector to monitor the high level policy commitments on forests, while reducing the reporting burden.
Some of the debate was quite detailed, but some general points emerged:
The following points were made about specific indicators:
The next step for the Global Core Set is working group discussions at the Expert Consultation on FRA2020 in June. The results of the on-line consultation will be presented to participants. Then the CPF will finalise the Global Core Set, which will be presented, by CPF, to the thirteenth session of the UN Forum on Forests in 2018.
I take this opportunity to warmly thank you all again for your participation and your valuable contributions to this intense high level consultation. It has indeed been a very rewarding and useful process.
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
The on-line consultation has now been completed. Thank you all: you made many lively and constructive contributions. Over the consultation as a whole, there were 34 individuals or groups who contributed, sometimes more than once, representing all regions and many different specialities. In addition, the webpage of the consultation received in total around 1,300 page views over the 3 weeks of the consultation. This clearly demonstrates a high level of interest in the question. Most of the contributions were quite comprehensive and all showed that the contributor had thought in depth about the issues
It is fair to say that everyone supported the basic concept of the Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which should be short, comprehensive and balanced, and help the forest sector to monitor the high level policy commitments on forests, while reducing the reporting burden.
In addition to the points I mentioned in the first two overviews, the following emerged in the last few days:
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Meza,
Thank you for your suggestions.
I agree that non-wood forest products are very important, for forest value and for livelihoods. The challenge is measuring such different products and assigning monetary values to them (the only solution for any aggregated outcome).
I recently had the privilege of visiting Chile’s untouched temperate rain forests, so fully agree on the importance of public recreation and tourism. There are challenges however, notably of multi-function forests which provide recreation and tourism alongside protection, biodiversity and even wood, as well as distinguishing “availability” for recreation from actual use for recreation, as measured for instance by visitor numbers (rarely available). In the European context we have been wrestling with this dilemma for some time, with limited success, it must be said.
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Guy and colleagues,
Thank you for the detailed and balanced comments.
I agree with you on the need to build in adaptation/improvement processes from the beginning, and to closely coordinate between GCS and FRA – while maintaining their quite separate missions.
On the specific indicators:
#4 It is quite true that measuring the contribution of multi-function forests (i.e. all of them) is difficult, but necessary. This indicator is the only one on the protection functions of forests, which usually are not remunerated, and often (but not always) occur as a consequence of the pure existence of the forest.
# 5 We do need a more accurate indicator of “employment associated with the forest secor”, including upstream (forest) and downstream (industry) as well as forest related jobs n conservation, education, research, ourism etc. Getting this out of noral employment statistics may need a creative approach!
#10 We are aware of the shortcomings of certification as an indicator of SFM, and the need to intepret the results carefully (that applies to all the indicators). It is however very impactful and easily understood, which is presumably why it is part of the SDG 15.2.1 indicator, which the GCS should shadow. I agree that this indicator should receive ongoing scrutiny, and care be taken to point out that many sustainably managed forests are not certified.
#14 Share of forest area disturbed is indeed vital, and needs a lot of work, because of the specific characteristics of the different types of disturbance. Breaking it up by type of disturbance is probably necessary for the construction of the data, but at the “macro” level of the Global Core Set, it will be necessary to aggregate them.
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Tim
Thank you for your interesting contribution, which opens the discussion to some new aspects (Hollywood!).
I fully agree that social aspects are not covered well enough. One fundamental reason is that our forest community is better at measuring trees and ecosystems than societies and social processes. We have to learn, and your demonstration of the many people-centred ways in which forests contribute to new Zealanders’ welfare was very interesting. In other countries, the list would look quite different. However, unfortunately, I do not think we are ready yet to include an extra indicator to the Global Core Set, which is linked to the global commitments, measurable and universal. But we must work towards this correction as our present unbalanced indicator set (which reflects data measurement problems, but also in many cases, policy priorities) will influence the way we, and people outside the “forest sector”, think about our challenges and issues.
Thanks
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Van Opzeeland and colleagues,
Thank you for your wide ranging, realistic and detailed comments. I will do my best to cover all the questions you raise, in a summarised way.
Reactions to some of your detailed comments:
#4 Another contributor suggested “Forest area designated and/or managed for protection of soil and water”. I think that would address the issue you raise?
#6, 7 and 8 The notes should indeed make clear what types of policies and institutions are meant here, as well as the importance of “process”. In fact experience with FRA 2015 on these topics seems to be quite positive.
#13 and 10. I see traceability and certification as two sides of a coin, both the fight against illegal logging and increasing the share of products from sustainably managed forests – and being able to demonstrate that they do in fact come from sustainably managed forests.
#14 It is now clear that “health and vitality” should not be part of the indicator itself, and just confuses the topic. It is already difficult enough to define and measure “disturbance”!
#18 Opinions appear divided on whether or not wood energy is inside the scope of SFM. I am not sure myself which way to go.
#19 Agree that PES is not “ripe” yet. Perhaps to include it in the list of “candidates”?
#21 Clearly data on carbon/GHG stocks and flows should be collected through UNFCCC which has well tested guidelines. However is climate change mitigation through forests really outside the scope of a Global Core Set of forest related indicators?
Thank you for raising the question of finalising the Global Core Set. I am not a part of the decision making bodies but, as I understand it, the idea is to have an open and participatory process of drawing up the Global Core Set, including the OLI and the online consultation, which will finish at the Expert Consultation in Joensuu, but not to have a formal negotiating process. The final decision on the Global Core Set will be taken by the CPF, on the basis of the consultation process. I do not think any decision has been made inside the CPF on how this will be done. However, the CPF has been formally asked by UNFF12 to present the Global Core Set to UNFF13 next year, so countries will have a chance to comment then.
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Rastislav,
Thank you for your comments and above all for linking the Global Core Set to its stated objectives. In other work, I have prepared cross references between the draft Global Core Set and the forest relevant SDG indicators, the Global Forest Goals and Targets and the Aichi Targets relevant to forests: I can confirm that most of the targets are covered in some way by the Global Core Set, with the exception of food security and some of the institutional objectives in Global Forest Goals 4 and 6, which are not well adapted to an indicator approach. Coverage of the contribution of forests to “social, economic and environmental development” (GFGT 2.4) is weak, chiefly because of the vagueness of wording of the target.
I would be cautious about splitting the Global Core Set into sections according the goals, as the idea of the core set is to achieve efficiency by devising indicators which can be useful in several contexts, thus reducing the reporting burden.
As regards your detailed comments (apart from indicators where you agreed with the draft):
On the additional indicators you propose:
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Gritten
Thank you for the interesting comments and challenging questions. Any indicator set needs to be put in a context and address specific questions.
On your specific remarks
#2 I am not sure we will break down the totals, but at least use IUCN concepts of what consitutes “protection”. Many foresters would say that all forests are protected, simply by the existence of a forest law, but this is not what is meant here.
#5 Two points: “logging” is included because that is the title of the heading in ISIC. Others have suggested a wider scope for this indicator. You raise an important point about the meaning of the indicator. Frequently SFM is welcomed as a provider of jobs, but people tend to forget that labour, like all other factors of production should be used efficiently. We should not aim at SFM only to provide jobs. And in many advanced forest countries, employment in forestry is dropping steadily because of improved productivity (while forest related jobs may be expanding – but we don’t know for sure)
#11 ODA is included because there is a commitment to provide more ODA (or financial respources in general), and this should be monitored. But I share your concerns about the meaning of this, espcially as many countries in the world receive no ODA, for forests or anything else. Here, it is the donors, rather than the recipients who might be monjitoried.
#16 Likewise with forest dependent people. Here the main commitment is to eradicate extreme poverty for all forest dependent people. Perhaps we should focus on reducing the number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty?
Community forestry is of course important in those countries where it is possible/apprpriate, which is by no means all countries in the world (remember this global core set applies to all countries, not just developing countries), so this might be difficult. Is there a clear and accepted defintion of “community forestry”?
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear colleagues of SEMARNAT and CONAFOR
Thank you for detailed and constructive comments.
I agree that socio-economic and biodiversity indicators are not well covered, for the reasons you mention.
As regards your detailed comments (ignoring, for the sake of space, those occasions when you provide background or say that further definition of terms is needed):
Thank you
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Tomasz
Thank you for your comments, and in particular bringing the discussion back to the precise high level commitments we are meant to monitor, which I take as the Global Forest Goals and Targets, the SDG forest-related indicators, the Aichi targets, UNCCD and UNFCCC. I am working on a systematic cross reference between these goals and the Global Core Set, for the Expert Consultation which might help decisions. You also identify two of the most challenging topics livelihoods/extreme poverty and food security, both of which still pose major challenges. I hope the CPF will be able to address these challenges in the near future as an interagency approach is necessary for this type of issue. We (the forest “community”) will indeed not look good if we are unable to back up our claims that forests are important for food security and livelihoods with hard facts. This implies not only agreeing on concepts and methods, but carrying out surveys in a significant number of counties before, say, 2019.
Thanks
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear John,
Thank you for your comments, and especially for the news that FSC and PEFC are working together to fix an annoying statistical/analytical problem. The two organisations were the only people able to fix this, so we all thank you.
As regards whether or not to include certification as part of the Global Core Set, there have been quite intense discussions (centred on the issues you mention) not only in forest circles, but also at the Interagency and Expert Group (IAEG) responsible for the SDG indicators, in particular 15.2.1 Progress towards sustainable forest management. At present the share of certified forest is one of the subcomponents of this compound indicator. As long as that is the case, it would probably be unwise for the Global Core Set to diverge from the SDG indicator.
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Conceição,
Thanks for the precise and constructive comments.
You make an important point about the general line, and the need for balance. And I agree that biodiversity and NWFP are not well covered – chiefly because we couldn’t find anything that worked. This has been picked up by quite a lot of contributors. However, the scope is not only the Global Forest Goals and Targets, but also forest-relevant parts of other instruments, notably Agenda 2030, the Aichi targets (biodiversity again!) and UNCCD as well as, to a certain extent UNFCCC. Given that we hope for a rather small core set, these big guns rather squeeze the list.
On your detailed comments:
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Cher M. Keita
Merci de vos suggestions concernant des produits forestiers non-ligneux qui sont importants dans l’Afrique de l’ouest. Plusieurs participants à cette consultation ont souligné l’importance d’identifier et de suivre ces produits, qui contribuent certainement à la sécurité alimentaire. Cependant, je ne pense pas que ces produits ont leur place dans une liste des indicateurs clé au niveau mondial et qui se réfère aux grands engagements globaux, qui ne font pas mention de produits spécifiques. Cependant, je vous encourage à continuer de souligner l’importance de ces produits et de suivre les tendances de production et de consommation. Il sera certainement nécessaire de faire une agrégation, pour le FRA probablement, de tous les produits forestiers non-ligneux, en termes économiques ou physiques ($, tonnes) pour démontrer l’importance de ce secteur.
Merci
Kit Prins
Facilitateur
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Ms. Ehlers
Thank you deepening the discussion about wood energy. I very much agree with your description of why it is important, and the way this important topic falls into a “gap” between forest and energy policies (you say “there is not much dialogue between the two sectors”: in Europe, that is quite an understatement – and the energy sector has the financial resources). Wood energy is also an issue where the whole discussion is radically different in developed and developing countries (or even regions within countries).
I would also like an indicator of demand, supply and sustainability of supply for wood energy, but I fear this might be complex in practice as all wood can be burned, and the main tension is often between uses of wood, not total harvest levels. On balance, I agree with your last sentence: that it wood energy may not need to be included in Global Core Set of forest related indicators, but should be carefully monitored at the national level and incorporated into all statements and commitments about policy for forests – and for energy.
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Simon,
Thanks for the list and comments. As you saw, a lot of them build on what was done at the Ottowa workshop.
I like your list, and that you had the courage to slash some surplus. You did remove some indicators linked to high level policy commitments (e.g. on financial resources for SFM and degraded forest), but maybe that is the price to pay for streamlining. That is not for me to decide.
On your specific comments, I have some responses
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Sejuti Sarkar De and Debasish De,
Thank you for your detailed suggestions for an Indian perspective, backed up by hard data.
To start from your suggestions for additions:
A few brief reactions to your detailed comments:
#2 Practices do vary very widely on how to define “protected areas”. However, guidelines are available, notably from IUCN.
#3 At a national or global level measurements in kg would lead to excessive detail
#4 There are indeed many problems in defining “designated” objectives in multi-function forests, which have been discussed at length in the context of FRA. In India, it may well be OK to use “Forest area (in ha.) under watershed management plan”.
#5 “Employment” is indeed difficult to define, and it is hard to set the boundary lines for what is covered. “Employment” is defined by ILO, but does it include everyone, such as the groups you mention. We should follow the international guidelines where they exist, even though many groups might be left out.
#9 I agree that “proportion of area” is more meaningful than area in hectares.
#12 I also agree that we need a ratio here, not just an absolute figure. Illegal logging should be included in removals, but, for obvious reasons, is difficult to report.
#14 Degradation” and “disturbance” are not quite the same, and both present problems of concept and definition. There is a high level policy commitment to halting forest degradation while disturbance is a part of any ecosystem, so perhaps we should give priority to degradation – but how defined?
#16 Thank you for the data on India which clearly show the importance of NWFP for livelihoods. It is a big challenge to “zoom out” from local and national levels to find something which is usable at the global level, because of the multiplicity of products, each with its own measurement system.
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Dr. Powell,
Thank you very much for positive suggestions on forests’ contribution to food security, which is definitely covered inadequately by the Global Core Set, especially as Global Forest Target 2.3 specifically refers to “the contribution of forests and trees to food security”. The question is actually “can we supply meaningful information, in a simple indicator, for use at the global level, in the short term?” This is not my area of expertise, but the indicators you propose seem to be more the building blocks than the big picture: they are all measurable at the survey level, but can they be scaled up to the national level, and how do you combine them to cast light on the question of how much forests contribute to food security? You say “Without better, systematic/ globally comparable data we will remain unable to accurately estimate the contribution of forest foods to diet quality, nutrition and food security”. (Incidentally, it seems to me that forests’ contribution to food security is wider than forest foods.) To me, this means that, regretfully, at this stage, we cannot propose an indicator on food security for the Global Core Set, but that work is urgently needed, in the right circles, to generate such an indicator with supporting methodology and definitions. Perhaps such work could start from your proposals?
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Gyde,
Your “rantings” are very welcome, and remind us of the necessity of clear definitions – and how the choice of definitions can strongly influence the meaning of the information.
You (along with others) ask the most important question “What are we trying to track?” In my view, we have to be careful when addressing the Global Core Set, as this is not FRA nor a free standing set of criteria and indicators: rather it is a streamlining of what needs to be tracked to monitor whether we are fulfilling the commitments made at the global policy level. This is broader and more inter-sectoral than “pure” forest sector monitoring, and is not itself a data collection system, but a framework for data collection systems, and a clarification of the needs of the users of those systems.
Furthermore, the Global Core Set is being built in an international area where there has been long and detailed discussion over many years: so we must avoid reinventing the wheel, and calling into question the many compromises agreed over the years. Thus on your questions on the definition of forest (the corner stone of the whole building), we have no choice but to use the existing FRA definition, whatever its well-known shortcomings and, as you point out, ambiguities (but nothing better has been found yet!). This approach is even explicitly endorsed by the SDGs.
I agree with you that “more work is needed” on a number of issues and definitions, including “degraded forest”, forest dependent people” “ecosystem services” “designated and managed”, “health and vitality”. All of these should be addressed in the follow-up to the agreement on the Global Core Set.
Finally, thank you for the remark that we are all dependent on forests in one way or another, which is true.
Regards
Kit
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear all,
A lively discussion continues, with many points of view and nearly all parts of the world participating. I have counted 18 contributors, some representing groups and some contributing more than once. I hope this continues.
Some of the debate has been quite detailed, but I would pick out the following, in addition to what I reported in my first overview.
Finally, the consultation must end on 21 May (this Sunday), as I should transmit the results to an Expert Consultation starting on 12 June.
Thank you all
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr.Somogyi,
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
You are of course right about the laws of nature – although observing the climate change debate leads me to think that some policy makers are perfectly happy to destroy the planet’s ecosystems whatever the scientists say!
What you are proposing can very well progress in parallel with the Global Core Set, as they are quite different enterprises. Nor do I disagree with many of your suggestions, most of which seem excellent, and I have no desire to “rebut” any of them. My problem is that for an indicator set to be operational at the international, or national, level, there must be a broad consensus of all stakeholders. The ultimate responsibility for decision lies with the Governments which represent their peoples. At the international level, these Governments must also seek consensus, which is a complex and sensitive process. The result is negotiated texts, notably in our case, Agenda 2030 (the SDGs), the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biodiversity and the Global Forest Goals and Targets set out in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests. The first and third of these were formally approved by the General Assembly of the UN and the second by the CBD COP. The forest sector as whole, as part of the international community, has a responsibility to supply information to these policy makers in the form which they will find useful. This is the context for the Global Core Set, which, perhaps unfortunately, does not have the freedom to start a new process, ignoring the discussions which have taken place between hundreds or thousands of people, over 25 years – even if, from time to time, we disagree as individuals with what has been agreed. None of this prevents any person or group from creating their own structure of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, starting from first principles, as you propose.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution to the discussion
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Stefanie,
Thanks a lot for the detailed and constructive comments. I respond to them below
General comments: I strongly support the selection of only up to 15 indicators into a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators.
Thanks (although I notice that, like everyone else you are keener to add than to delete indicators!)
Attention should be paid to the fact that the selection of indicators should give a representative, worldwide relevant picture of forests and forestry but should also be of interest for related sectors like biodiversity, climate change, energy or bioeconomy.
Yes indeed – but also the SDG process, which incorporates them all
Therefore, the core set should contain indicators which are also part of indicator sets of related sectors like indicators used within the CBD, UNFCCC or UNCCD which have also indicator related reporting obligations.
#2 and 4: I recommend to keep the indicator on protected forest areas separated from the indicator on protective forest areas (proposal of another expert), as protected areas are a main CBD indicator for Assessing Progress towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target and the indicator on “forest area within protected areas” directly contributes to this.
I fully agree on the necessity of using the same wording as other sectors to improve consistency
#3 and 1: Concerning the reporting of above-ground biomass stock in forests in tonnes instead of tonnes/ha, is a need to determine if we want to agree now on the measurement units which should be requested from the data providers or on the measurement units which should be officially reported/communicated. I do not mind if related data is requested in tonnes. However, it should be reported in above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes/ha) as otherwise the comprehension will be limited (Comparison with national figures). I would propose to negotiate measurement unit which will be used to present the underlying data. This is also relevant for indicator 1 on forest area. Fine to request information on forest area as proportion of total land area, but of interest for the sector, the broad public and the politicians is the forest area net change rate, which should be part of the information presented.
I think there was some confusion in the Task Force between the formulation of the indicators (which should have a direction and meaning) and the problems of data collection. The latter are the concern of FRA or other operations, and not directly the concern of the Global Core Set. Clearly the data will be collected in absolute terms (ha, m3, tons etc.), but the indicator says how these data should be put in a context. For #3, which I see as monitoring the drain/increment ratio, what is important is the change, as if drain exceeds increment and/or there is deforestation, the above ground biomass will decrease. In this context, it is probably better to lok at change in tons, rather than change in tons/ha. If the latter is monitored, deforested land simply disappears from the equation. You could even have an increase in tons/ha in a deforestation situation (if the deforested area had below average biomass/ha)
#5 Employment in forestry and logging: I would rather propose to use employment in the forest sector, as the forest sector is defined by the statistical offices. Then further divide the data accordingly to statistical subcategories.
I used the term “forestry and logging” as that is used by the international ISIC classification. However, it does exclude many jobs which relevant to the forest sector, such as subsistence farming as well as tourism, research, nature conservation etc. We should perhaps refer to employment in the forest sector, even if we are forced back to basic data on “forestry and logging”.
#13 Existence of a traceability system for wood products. This indicator is without underlying measurement unit difficult to comment on. If it there are only yes/no options per country, then it seems rather meaningless. It needs to consider at least different ownership structures. Would be helpful to have the possibility to comment on the underlying explanatory notes as well.
It is true that a yes/no question does not give much possibility for differentiation. My idea was that we need to link sustainably managed forest with consumption of products, in line with the commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests (global forest target 3.3) (unclear whether the commitment refers to production or to consumption). Perhaps we should express the traceability in volume terms (“volume of wood products consumed which can demonstrate they are from sustainable sources”, or similar)?
#14 Forest health and vitality: Should be part of the set, as indicators on forest health and vitality are part of all regional C&I processes and data is available in FRA. Concentrate on forest area damaged (by multiple factors) and separate data on forest area damaged by fire, as this is an emerging issue.
“Forest health and vitality” appears in all regional C&I sets, and the 7 thematic elements. However, I have just noticed that the Global Forest Goals and Targets refer to “resilience” and “adaptive capacity” which are not quite the same. There are also the well-known problems of measuring damage or disturbance (multiple causes, combined effects, damage v. normal ecosystem processes). All in all, I cannot really see a global core set which does not address health and vitality in some way!
#15 Area of degraded forest: Should be part of the set and changed into green, as degraded forests are an emerging issue due to climate change, particularly through draught, heat, erosion. Degraded land area is also an indicator under UNCCD.
Fully agree, especially as there are several high level commitments to halt forest or land degradation. However, we still need a workable definition of “degraded forest”!
#18: Share of wood based energy in total primary energy consumption…: should be part of the set to show the sectors contribution to a green/bioeconomy.
That was my thinking, but several contributors have questioned it (and we do need to reduce the number of indicators a bit). I looked at the high level commitments and found no reference at all to wood or biomass energy. The SDGs (7.2.1) refer to renewable energies, without further detail. It would be good to have more views n this.
#21 Carbon stocks and changes in forest land: Should be definitely moved back to the set as carbon stocks and carbon stock changes are an important UNFCCC indicator and we should show the forest sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation. Concerning the comment about deviating UNFCCC and FRA data I was informed that the reviewers of the Greenhouse-Gas-Inventories double check validity with the FRA data. Even so that data harmonisation is often necessary the indicator should definitely be part of the Global Core Set due to its global importance in the climate change debate.
I also would find it strange to have a global core set without any specific mention of forests’ role in climate change mitigation. Nor am I worried about differences between FRA and UNFCCC processes, as we should not exclude policy relevant information for reasons of data consistency. However, the indicator might be streamlined (bearing in mind that carbon stocks are implicitly addressed in #3) to something like “Net GHG sink/source of forests”, which would capture the effect of deforestation on the climate as well as the forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation, where this occurs.
Thanks again
Kit
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Jingpin Lei,
Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments.
I fully agree that it is very challenging to devise indicator sets to suit very diverse conditions. As a consequence, a global core set, which must address global commitments made in a variety of high level fora, is bound to lack specific detail, and needs to be complemented by other indicators valid for particular regions, countries or ecosystems. The aim is to provide information in a form which can be used in the global policy dialogue – not only by forest sector experts and policy makers, but also by policy makers for other sectors and for sustainable development as a whole. This objective should be borne in mind when making the tradeoffs which are inevitable in agreeing a global core set.
As regards your specific comments (separate post), you agree with several other commentators on the challenge of defining “degraded” and the concepts underlying “% disturbed”. You also agree with others that recovery rates for paper and wod are outside the scope of SFM, and on the challenges of employment data. On carbon stocks and flows, you are right that colecting data is difficult and expensive. However, the UNFCCC has developed detailed guidelines on GHG accounting, which have been widely used by signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. The point here is that forest inventory people should work closely together with those responsible for GHG accounting, to achieve useful results (even if there are sometimes tensions between the two approaches) .
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Giovanni,
Thank you for your comments based on real experience.
The indicators you identify are all of great interest. In fact some of them are already included in the pan-European set (species composition, naturalness of forest, silvicultural system, – not as detailed as you suggest – age structure, damage). A few of them (naturalness, disturbance, and management objective, with slightly different wordings) are in FRA 2015.
Unfortunately we are trying to reduce (not increase) the number of indicators and link each of them to the global objectives (SDG, Strategic Plan, Aichi Targets), none of which, to my knowledge, specifically mentions the indicators you list, with the exception of the commitment to reduce illegal logging/improve forest governance (addressed - weakly, I am afraid - by indicators 13 traceability/illgal logging and 15 degraded forests). I also fear that some of the indicators you mention might prove very challenging to measure at the global level, especially in countries with a high proportion of natural forests, with very different approaches to silviculture.
So I believe your very interesting suggestions would probably be more appropriate to the European regional context, not the Global Core Set.
Thanks again, and best regards
Kit
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Abegg
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions.
Here are my reactions
GCS1 I agree that the significance of changes in area will depend on circumstances. Indicators do not provide objective assessments of “good” and “bad” trends.
GCS 2. As you say, “protected” is not legally defined. However there is a lot of experience, in FRA and IUCN of how it should be interpreted. In this matter, I think we should follow precedent.
GCS3 For reporting purposes, tons and tons/ha are both quite easy. However, this indicator should, in my view, focus on change in growing stock, as a reduction in growing stock in most cases implies overuse of the resource (I know Switzerland is an exception as growing stock is at too high a level).
GCS4 I agree that it is difficult to identify the importance of the protection functions of forests
GCS 5 With “forest related jobs” (not quite the same as “employment in forestry and logging”), it seems to me the challenge is to agree on what the meaning of the indicator is. More jobs can mean a healthy sector, or inefficient labour practices.
GCS 6 Yes, an explanatory note will be needed when information is collected.
GCS 7 Good point about need to define "scientifically sound"
GCS 9 I agree that definitions and interpretation of what constitutes a “long term management plan” is vital. FRA does have experience in this respect, so that can be the base.
GCS 10 You touch on a sensitive spot when you express concern about using certification as a surrogate for sustainability. I sympathise with your point of view. However, forest laws are not well implemented in many countries, and certification provides a visible and comprehensive guarantee of sustainability, which follows the wood through the chain-of-custody systems, even if many sustainably managed forests are not certified. For many people outside the sector, certification is the only way of reaching sustainability: some people proposed area of certified forest as the only indicator for sustainable forest management! In any case, at present certified area is in the SDG indicator for progress towards SFM, so it would be hard to exclude it now.
GCS 11 Yes. Several people have proposed merging this indicator (on ODA alone) with indicator 17 on all financial resources for SFM. This is probably a good idea, even though defining and measuring the other financial resources will be challenging.
GCS 13 You say a traceability system is often not needed. But is not the idea of traceability behind chain-of-custody systems and policy instruments like the EUTR and the Lacey Act, which are increasingly important everywhere? So the concept is applicable to all countries, not only those with an illegal logging problem. There is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests: I do not see how this can be done without some sort of traceability.
GCS 14 I agree with your remarks about defining and measuring “damage” or “disturbance”
GCS 15 Defining degradation is indeed a major challenge. The FRA 2015 approach (partial canopy cover loss) is not 100% satisfactory. But again, there are high level commitments to halt forest degradation so a means must be found to monitor it
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Jafari,
Thank you for introducing the perspective of Low Forest Cover Countries to the discussion.
I believe most of the indicators are fully applicable to LFCCs – it is the interpretation of the results which will differ between countries. In particular the results of the monitoring might be able to support a case for increasing forest cover in LFCCs.
Trees outside the forest are especially important in LFCCs (although their importance is increasingly recognised elsewhere). How do you think they could be addressed in the Global Core Set (bearing in mind the need for a streamlined set, and links to high level policy commitments)?
The Global Core Set has focused on monitoring policy commitments. So while research must, of course, be the foundation of the measurement, and the methods used must be scientifically sound, guidance should come from policy makers as to priorities for monitoring. So I see no need for extra information - in the Global Core Set itself - on links between the indicators and research. Or have I misunderstood your concerns?
Thank you for your contribution
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear GIZ colleagues
Thank you for concise and realistic comments
A few reactions:
3 I agree tonnes/ha is a better indicator than just tonnes
7 FRA normally collects information on date of survey. I suppose that it is part of being “scientifically sound” to be recent!
8 Agree to propose addition of “effective” to the indicator – although few respondents would admit their NFP was not “effective”.
13 I agree that existence of a traceability system is critical – and easier to measure than illegal logging and trade. Furthermore, there is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests. I think it is impossible to monitor this without the existence of some sort of traceability system.
15 Thanks for the suggestions of contacts on measurement of degraded forest
16 You say, rightly, that this indicator is “vague”. However Global Forest Goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty[1] for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”, which is a very precise and ambitious commitment. Perhaps the indicator should follow the wording of the commitment: “Number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty”? In my view, the topic of extreme poverty of forest dependent people cannot be omitted from the Global Core Set.
18 (wood energy) the fundamental problem is that in some (developing) countries, policy makers want to reduce wood energy (because of air pollution, fuel poverty, overharvesting etc.), while elsewhere the emphasis is on expanding renewable energy, including wood biomass from sustainable sources. Given the generally weak data quality, and the difficulty of giving meaning to this indicator, not to mention the fact that wood energy is not mentioned in any of the global commitments[2], I am inclined to think this indicator might be dropped.
19 I agree that the time is not right to include an indicator on payment for ecosystem services.
20 You recommend to drop an indicator of recovery rates for wood and paper, and I have seen no strong support for this indicator, partly because it is seen as being outside the scope of a forest focused indicator.
21 You recommend to drop the indicator on carbon stocks and flows. I am rather reluctant as two of the Global Forest Targets (1.2 and 2.5) refer to carbon stocks and mitigation/adaptation of climate change. In my view, the key question is whether indicator 2 (above ground biomass stocks) is adequate to monitor forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation. As it stands, indicator 21, as the Task Force said, has too many elements. Could it be streamlined to refer to GHG sink/source of forests??
Thanks again for your contribution to the ongoing discussion
Kit Prins
Facilitator
[1] Defined in the SDGs as people living on less than $1.25 a day
[2] SDG 7.2.1 refers to renewable energy, without specifying wood or biomass
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Somogyi
Thank you for your clear and interesting contribution, and for stressing that indicators only have meaning when they are in a context of policy objectives. Thank you also for reminding us how difficult it has proved to define sustainable forest management in an objective way. (My own favourite definition is the one in Helsinki Resolution H1 of the MCPFE, but there is now a global definition approved by the General Assembly) In practice, SFM has been defined implicitly by the various sets of criteria and indicators negotiated at the regional level. The key word here is “negotiated”: although many processes started with the type of clarity you display, confusion increased as delegates compared their own specific national circumstances to the emerging texts, and complained vigorously when their own situation was not fully reflected (or their national reality looked bad according to the emerging indicators). The situation has become more complex with the high level policy commitments which have an influence on the forest sector, notably biodiversity and climate, as well as desertification. Even wider commitments (first the MDGs, than Agenda 2030 and the SDGs) have put forest issues in the context of sustainable development. Thus it is no longer possible, at the international level, to start with a clean sheet of paper and draw up a set of indicators from first principles. On the other hand, we now have a lot of formal high level policy commitments, which, taken together, provide direction for the Global Core Set. The three most important high level commitments in this context are the Global Forest Goals and Targets in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, Agenda 2030 and its forest related SDG indicators, and the Aichi Targets of the CBD. There is overlap and duplication between these commitments, which are “negotiated text” with all that implies of complexity and sensitivity. Nevertheless there are some quite specific quantifiable commitments, including to increase forest area by 3% worldwide, and that 17% of terrestrial ecosystems should be conserved for biodiversity.
I am afraid that to “redesign the whole system” as you recommend would be to attempt to replace the carefully negotiated high level policy commitments with a new system which depended only on the intellectual rigour of the designers. Such an exercise would not be supported widely. The draft Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators should be seen firmly in the context of the high level policy commitments, and build on the experience of the global (and regional) forest dialogue of the last 25 years.
You also question the usefulness of the so-called “qualitative indicators” (in fact indicators of the legal policy and institutional framework, the seventh “thematic element”). In many cases, indicators of outcomes (for instance a change in forest area, growing stock or biodiversity) have serious drawbacks as tools to guide policy: often the outcomes have multiple causes, so weakening the links with policy, and, in the forest sector, policy changes often need many years to have any effect at all. It is established practice in sets of criteria and indicators to combine indicators of outcomes with indicators of the legal, policy and institutional framework. Neither type is adequate by itself, but taken together they can be useful. Of course, it would be good to incorporate some measure of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the policy measures, but that can be hard in an intergovernmental context.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Mwanje
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive contribution, and especially for generating an alternative set of indicators.
However, there may be a misunderstanding, due to my failure to explain fully the context of this Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which are based on the experience of regional and national sets of criteria and indicators, and took them all into account, after carrying out interviews with many major players. The Global Core Set does not aim to start from a blank sheet and first principles, as that is no longer possible, after the lengthy negotiations and compromises which have taken place, inside the forest sector and outside it. We did in fact start with the seven thematic elements which you list, but these have now been relegated in importance by high level policy commitments, notably the UN Strategic Plan for Forests and its Global Forest Goals and Targets, along with the Agenda 2030 and the SDG targets, some of which refer to forests, and the Aichi biodiversity targets. These state, at a high policy level, what are the targets, and therefore what should be monitored. The Global Core Set aims to synthesize, on the basis of these approved targets, and the forest sector’s experience with criteria and indicators, what should be measured, to enable coordinated reporting, and indicate clearly to those responsible for data collection where the priorities should be. The list as it stands is organised by the colour codes used in the process (maintain/further work/delete), which has unfortunately concealed its inner structure. I hope this can be remedied before the core set is finalised. So the draft Global Core Set may not be theoretically sound, but it reflects the state of play in the global forest dialogue as of 2017.
I do not understand your reference to not reducing the reporting burden: data on all the indicators you mention (5, 8, 12 and 15) are easily available of good quality through the FRA. (Others do of course present considerable reporting challenges).
Indicator 14. It is true that the first half is a criterion, but the second half (“% of forest area disturbed”) is a proper indicator. Thank you for pointing this out: I think it can be fixed.
The overlap between 17 and 11 arose because the global dialogue at first focused on ODA (11) and then widened to “resources from all sources” (17). At present data on ODA are more easily available and better structured, and so easier to handle. However, I agree that there is a lot of overlap and we should try to combine them, bringing together data of different quality and different sources to generate a broader picture.
I do not have the possibility to comment on every one of your very coherent indicator set, which follows the “classical” structure of many regional indicator sets. I would make a few comments:
Thank you once again for your contribution
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
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
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
The motives of plantations are often complex and change over time
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
Dear Mr. Benitez
Thank you for your suggestion, which reflects the content of several regional indicator sets.
I agree that economic and social aspects should be better covered in the Global Core Set. Furthermore, data are available (this is tracked by FRA). The problem arises with the interpretation of the results. In fact the share of the forest sector in GDP is not determined by the forest sector itself, but by the rest of the economy. There are many cases of dynamic and expanding forest sectors in countries with strong economies, where the share of the forest sector in the national GDP is small – and shrinking. This is due to the fact that other parts of the economy (services, information technology, etc. etc.) are much larger and growing faster than the forest sector (typically the forest sector accounts for less than 1% of GDP). There is little that forest sector policy makers can, or should, do about this.
Perhaps the economic dimension could be strengthened by an indicator of “Gross value added by the forest sector as ratio to forest area “(in $/ha). This would also have measurement problems, notably the omission of forest related income not included in the “forestry and logging” part of national accounts (forest related tourism, teaching, research, subsistence livelihoods etc.), but, it seems to me, could be a good start.
Thanks again. What do you, and others contributors, think of my suggestion?
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Benson,
Thank you for your suggestion (and sorry about the delay in replying to you).
As regards the definition of forest used by FAO, SDG and others, no-one claims it is perfect, which is not surprising given the wide variety of circumstances and points of view. However, it has emerged from more than 20 years of discussion and negotiation, and is probably the best possible at present. So everyone should stick with it for the time being.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by “productivity for tree and biomass products”. If you mean net annual increment or another measure of forest productivity in terms of wood growth, I agree this would be desirable – and this measure is often used, for instance in the pan-European indicator set. The problem here is that many countries with a high proportion of natural forests (including Canada) do not measure increment, and could not supply the information. From a (wood-focussed) sustainability point of view, the important thing is that drain (harvests and natural losses) is not higher than increment. At present, it appears not to be possible to measure the different components of this equation for all, or even most, countries. However, the net outcome of this interaction is changes in forest biomass: if drain is higher than increment, growing stock decreases; if not, growing stock is stable or increases. This is covered by indicator 3. So the productivity question is covered indirectly.
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear all,
Comments have all been positive and constructive.
UNFF12 in New York last week noted the process to develop the Global Core Set and asked the CPF to present the final set to UNFF13 next year. Eva Muller of FAO urged people to participate in our online consultation. So this consultation should have consequences in the real world!
The main general points I have noted are:
As a comment on the above, we must also avoid inflation on the list, which should not exceed 10-15 indicators. That means we should be deleting, not adding indicators. This is difficult as no-one likes cutting important topics. And every topic is someone’s favourite, in which they have invested time and thought. As Yeats said, in another context, “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams”.
Kit Prins
Facilitator of the online discussion
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Kasareka,
There is a good case for merging indicators 2 (protected areas) and 4 (areas managed for soil and water protection) as in many cases the regimes are similar and there is a lot of overlap. Most areas protected for biodiversity also protect against erosion. Also in many countries, all forests are managed for protection of soil and water (see the latest study on State of Europe’s Forests, where several countries point out that all forests are meant to provide protection for soil and water). The problem here is that such a merger leaves one of the seven thematic elements (on the protective functions of forests) without its own dedicated indicator. Is that acceptable? What do the contributors think?
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Moderator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Ms. Weisheit
Thank you for these suggestions from a non-wood perspective, which is unfortunately quite rare in these discussions!
Here are my comments
I agree we should try to include non-timber forest jobs, where possible. Unfortunately most statistical data are collected according to standard employment classifications which refer to “forestry and logging”. We should try to move beyond this – also to jobs related to services, such as teaching, recreation, tourism, conservation etc. which are clearly forest related (when they occur in forests) but usually classified outside “forestry and logging”.
We should indeed include academia and science in indicator 8.
Indicator 12 (wood harvested per worker, in the version agreed by the OLI) was an attempt to address the issue of productivity and efficient use of resources, which is stressed in the green economy discussion, but has not met with a very enthusiastic response. The sustainability of harvest levels – obviously crucial – should be addressed by indicator 3, trends in biomass per hectare, as this would fall if harvests are too high
I am not sure about your reference to indicator 14 (forest health and vitality), which at present has no subheadings a and b. Perhaps you could clarify?
Do I understand that you propose as definition of “forest dependent people” those for whom at least 70% of livelihood comes from forest related goods and services? This is a clear and measurable definition – although it would certainly take time to collect comparable data worldwide. At present, there is no such definition agreed. Here is something I wrote on the question in the background paper for the OLI:
"Forest dependent people The second Global Objective refers to “livelihoods of forest dependent people” and it is clear that many millions of people, mostly very poor, are concerned. However the term of “forest dependent people” is not defined in FRA 2015 and it is uncertain whether the dependency refers to economic factors, residence, share of income or ecological dependency. Given the widespread poverty in these communities, and the importance of subsistence farming, it is also unlikely that comprehensive statistical coverage will be possible. A recent article[1] considers that “there are substantial divergences in who the term refers to, what each of its constituent words mean, and how many forest-dependent people there are globally” and proposes an 18 dimension taxonomy for analysis. The authors point out that “it is not intuitively obvious that either increasing or decreasing forest dependence in any of these dimensions is a policy objective that necessarily benefits the people in question or that is always desirable” Before correspondents are asked to provide information, clear guidance on these matters should be prepared."
We seem to need an informed discussion on the subject of an indicator for forest dependent people. Contributions are welcome!
Kit Prins
Moderator
[1] Who are forest-dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions Peter Newton, Daniel C. Miller, Mugabi Augustine Ateenyi Byenkya, Arun Agrawal. Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 388–395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.032
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Achard
Thank you very much for these comments which describe accurately the difference between real indicators and simple parameters or data series. Given the huge variety in different circumstances, it is indeed not enough just to provide data, even on a per hectare basis, without giving the indicator a real meaning. There will always be countries with large forest areas and high biomass stocks per hectare, whose forests are not being managed sustainably, and others with small forest area or low biomass/ha which are sustainably managed. I agree with you that if we are looking for meaning, we should focus (for many of the core indicators) on change over time. The absolute data for area or biomass may not tell us much, but a reduction, either in forest area or biomass per hectare, is a strong signal to look closer at the situation. There are circumstances where a reduction may be acceptable (e.g. average biomass per hectare may fall in the early stages of afforestation), but in general a reduction is a warning signal for analysts. (Incidentally, it is not possible to say that while a reduction, for instance of area or growing stock, is “bad”, an increase is “good”: sustainably managed forests may be stable in area and growing stock, as no increase is possible or desirable)
Your remarks bring out the fact that the Global Core Set should contain meaningful, policy relevant indicators: it is not a questionnaire to collect data (although it does, of course depend on reliable data notably those supplied by FRA).
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Moderator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Malik,
Thank you for your suggestions – and for broadening the discussion on the topics to be covered by the Global Core Set. I agree that economic factors like prices, markets, government spending and use of forest resources are critical to our understanding of and policy making for the forest sector. It seems to me quite unrealistic to look only at what happens inside the forest area, and ignore what goes on elsewhere. However these areas, notably prices and markets, have not been addressed in depth by most of the discussion on sustainable forest management. It would be interesting to have the opinion of other contributors on whether this type of factor should be included in a Global Core Set.
On the detail of your suggestions: 4 and 5 (government spending and fire damage) are included in the draft set, as part of indicators 17 (financial resources from all sources) and 14 (all damage/disturbance).
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Moderator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Padurii
Thank you for your comments.
You suggest indicators 14 (health and vitality) and 15 (degraded forest) should be combined. I addressed this in my reply to Mr. Houngbo: the two are not quite the same, but both are difficult to measure at the national level. The issue of forest degradation occurs in the high level goals and targets, so should probably be maintained. It is clearly of the highest policy importance to combat and monitor forest degradation. Do you, or other participants, have suggestions for a robust way of defining and measuring “forest degradation”?
You suggest a new indicator on forest biodiversity. It is true that the lack of a biodiversity indicator is a weakness. The draft core set contains several proxies for forest biodiversity, mostly focused on policy instruments to promote biodiversity: protected areas (3), policies supporting SFM (6), stakeholder participation (8), management plan (9), certification (10), payments for ecosystem services (19). There is nothing concrete on outcomes, chiefly because no practical way of monitoring forest biodiversity at the national level, in most countries of the world, has emerged from the numerous discussions which have taken place. Perhaps a major open debate should be launched on this topic (possibly for the next global core set of forest related indicators)?
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Moderator
السيد Christopher Prins
Dear Mr. Houngbo,
Thank you for these perceptive and constructive comments.
Here are my comments, set out between yours
Indeed, the main objective of many international efforts, notably SDG 15.2.1, is to monitor the area of forests sustainably managed. The challenge is to define and measure this area, given the wide variety of national conditions. Certification by itself is not sufficient as while most certified forests are sustainably managed, many sustainably managed forests are not certified. Also, “legal” is not always the same as “sustainable”. For SDG 15.2.1, an approach is being developed which combines essentially indicators 2, 3, 9, 10 (biodiversity conservation, biomass stock, long term management plan, area certified). The UN Statistical Office working group on this is advancing fast. It is clear that the Global Core Set of forest-related indicators would have to be adapted to be in conformity with the agreed SDG indicators in this respect.
2. The indicators 14 and 15 are approximately the same. We can just maintain the indicator 15;
They are indeed similar, but there are still differences. Mostly 14 refers to natural damage (pests, wind, fire, game etc.), while 15 refers to forests which have lost most of their ability to supply forest functions, often through human agency, notably overcutting. The term “degraded forest” occurs often in the official texts, but no-one has yet devised an agreed objective way of measuring it at a global level. Hence “more work is needed”, as we cannot ignore the many references to forest degradation in the high level documents. Do you or any other readers have ideas, to supply a waterproof definition of “degraded forest”?
3. The indicator 16 is not pertinent and should be difficult to establish;
I think it is pertinent (Global forest goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”), but it is extremely hard to implement, for the reasons set out in the task force comments. Should we give up on measuring poverty among “forest dependent people”?
4. Instead of defining the indicator 19 like that, I propose to use the “Percentage change in Total Economic Value (TEV)”
This indicator was meant to focus on the specific issue of payment for ecosystem services, which is seen as a core part of the emerging green economy, and a correction of the exclusive focus on economic value. However, as the task force says, this aspect is probably “not ready for the GCS of indicators” – which at present is too long, and should contain only indicators which are ready to go in every way. I would like to collect data on Total economic Value of forests world-wide, but it could be difficult
5) I think you can add these two indicators:
- Forest biodiversity level (the Shannon diversity index can be used for that) to show the richness of the forest;
It has been a long struggle to monitor biodiversity at the national level in a standard way, and so far only proxies, (e.g. area protected or endangered species) have been used. The Shannon diversity index seems to have quite rigorous data needs, and to be more adapted to particular forests than to national level monitoring. Have I misunderstood?
- Percentage change in species under overexploitation (overuse) in order to indicate the challenge for the forest restoration.
I agree it would be good to measure change in species diversity. This has been tried in Europe, but proved surprisingly difficult as national level knowledge of trends by species is not very good. We should perhaps revisit this.
Best regards.
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Moderator