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
Mr. Christopher Prins