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
Mr. Christopher Prins