Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

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.

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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.

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

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

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

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.

• 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.

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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):

• #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 again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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

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):

• #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

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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