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:
- #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
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Mr. Christopher Prins