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

This is a great start to a global set of core forest indicators. It is quite a challenge to find a list that is comprehensive, balance and short – the desired outcome expressed at the experts’ workshop held in Ottawa in May 2016 and at the Organization-Led Initiative workshop held in Rome in November 2016.

As a starting point, therefore, I thought about how I might reduce the list to be closer to the desired number of 12-15 essential indicators, while still being balanced among the accepted Criteria of established Criteria and Indicators Processes and aligned, as much as possible, with other existing reporting needs. In this way, global discussions on sustainable forest management are aided by increased consistency of information among countries and across reporting processes. Also, countries will be better able to respond to the many and varied requests they receive for information about their forests. I have articulated a possible list below (note that I have reordered the indicators so that similar or related indicators are closer together in the list).

1. Forest area
2. Forest area within protected areas
3. Forest area designated and managed for protection of soil and water
4. Forest area under a long-term forest management plan
5. forest area disturbed (including natural and anthropogenic disturbance)
6. Existence of scientifically sound national forest assessment process
7. Above-ground biomass stock in forest OR total growing stock
8. Volume of wood removals
9. number of forest dependent people
10. Employment in forestry and logging
11. Value of payments for ecosystem services (PES) related to forests OR value of forest products produced
12. Existence of policies supporting SFM
13. Existence of a national mechanism to secure multistakeholder participation in the development and implementation of forest-related policies

Generally, the task force that worked on this list of indicators has well described the technical challenges with the indicators. Below, I provide additional comments on the individual indicators, using the order in which they were presented in documents provided to this forum.

Forest area as proportion of total land area

The indicator “forest area” is preferred to the indicator “forest area as a proportion of total land area”. “Forest Area” is already widely reported, can be tracked over time for many individual countries, and would allow readers to easily calculate useful proportions for other area-based indicators in this list (e.g. forest area in protected areas) relative to the total forest area. Forest area as a proportion of land area can be readily calculated by readers as needed.

Forest area within protected areas

The current wording is fine in as much as it is easily reported. However, calculating the proportion relative to the total forest area (as suggested in the comments from the TF meeting) will require extra calculations if the first indicator is the proportion of forest relative to total land.

This indicator may not adequately capture important aspects of species diversity. Indicators such as the number of forest-associate species at risk or the number of forest-associated species extinctions could be considered.

Above-ground biomass stock in forest

Having some idea of total volume to measure removals against is useful. Growing stock of commercial species might be more useful in this regard than total above ground biomass, but may be more difficult to measure by all countries. Changes in biomass have to be reported in context of the countries circumstances to tell a story. A massive shift to intensive plantations might increase a country’s biomass, but what does that mean for sustainability?

Forest area designated and managed for protection of soil and water

All of the C&I processes include criteria on soils and water, so it’s important to include a relevant indicator in the core set. This indicator’s similarity to a GFRA indicator means that many countries likely can report on this indicator using established definitions.

Employment in forestry and logging

An important indicator. The current wording is a big improvement over the original suggested wording about the number of jobs per 1000 ha of forest. However, it would be useful to see the definition of employment expanded to beyond the current FAO definition to include those who work in saw mills and pulp and paper mills.

Existence of a national mechanism to secure multistakeholder participation in the development and implementation of forest-related policies

This indicator is fine, as long as it recognizes that in some countries, forest management is conducted at the sub-national level, and that the “national” mechanism may in fact be a series of sub-national mechanisms that cover the country.

Forest area under a long-term forest management plan

The indicator is fine as worded, but a definition of “long-term” is required

Existence of a traceability system for wood products

This may be too indirect to serve as a good indicator of illegal logging

Forest health and vitality: % of forest area disturbed

Simplifying this indicator to “forest area disturbed” would make it more it more comparable with other area-based indicators. Similarly, the proportion of forest disturbed could be calculated by readers if an indicator of total forest area is included in the set. Also, the term “forest health and vitality” should be removed. Other indicators do not possess prefaces like this, and it may lead to misunderstandings that forest disturbance is always negative for forests. In boreal and temperate forests, some level of disturbance is necessary for proper ecosystem functioning. Clarity will be needed on which disturbance types/intensities shall be included

Share of wood based energy in total primary energy consumption, of which in modern clean systems (%)

Wood energy is one product of many produced from the forest. Once the wood is harvested, the type of product it is turned into is not really relevant to whether the forest was managed sustainably or not.

Value of payments for ecosystem services (PES) related to forests

Forests have value beyond wood products and they are managed for multiple values - e.g. ecosystem services, like purifying water, stabilizing land, etc. However, as noted by the task force, the concepts are poorly defined and measurement would be a problem. Consider replacing it with an indicator on value of wood products - granted it is not as comprehensive as ecosystem services, but it is globally reportable.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Simon Bridge

Following are our comments on Global Core set of Forest related Indicators:

Indicator 2: There are levels of legal protection of forest – parts where community are allowed to enter and parts where all non-forest activities are banned. The indicator may be further segregated for better outcome.

Indicator 3: Above ground biomass stock to be measured in lower units like kg. In resource rich areas like that of rainforest yield/ha may be greater to a large extent than resource poor forest areas like that of desert/semi-desert areas. Lower units can help in error-free calculations.

Indicator 4: Forest areas are managed for multiple ecological benefits. It may be difficult to identify forest areas managed only for soil and water conservation. The same is true for mountain green cover. In India, glacial Himalaya is under Forest Department which have less green cover but is source of water for whole South Asia. A more suitable indicator may be Forest area (in ha.) under watershed management plan.

Indicator 5: The phrase ‘employment in forestry’ may be better clarified. The term ‘Employment’ will only include the Forest Department staff and those employed by contractors. Forestry also includes protection works and many community members including women are involved in forest protection. Members of Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) in India and similar such committees for Community Forest Management in South and South-East Asia are involved in forest protection in lieu of benefit sharing with Forest Department. Also, Forest Department employs Consultant Agencies for forest management, planning and monitoring. Staff of these agencies are also employed in forestry activities.

Indicator 9: ‘Proportion of forest area’ will be better for comparative analysis. Some countries may have smaller forest area but better forest management plan.

Indicator 12: Volume of wood harvesting can be m3/ha unit. This can be easily calculated in terms of 1000 people. Moreover, the unit m3/ha is used in many countries in forest management plans and the figure will be readily available. Also, forest wood calculation should consider illegal logging as well as logs decomposed due to natural processes. In India, a good percentage of logs are being left in the National Parks for decaying by order of Hon. Supreme Court. This should be taken under consideration.

Indicator 14: We think ‘degradation’ is a better term than disturbance. The factors of degradation may be specified as mentioned in Comments column. Another major disturbance in Invasive Species and Forest Department presently allocate budget for it’s removal.  

Indicator 16: Livelihood of forest dependent communities can be calculated under Economic Valuation of Forest other than timber (unit per ha.). In India, forest area is being used by community for rearing of Tussar silk worms, mulberry silk worms, cultivation of lac, areca nut, black pepper, betel leaf etc. The valuation of NTFP collected, specially, fuelwood and fodder grass regularly from forest is quite high. According to estimate of Planning Commission of India, 275 million people depend on NTFP and annual business turnover of NTFP generated and processed is more than Rs.6000 crores (approx. 960 million USD). Ecotourism is another major source of revenue generation and employment generation from forest both for Forest Department and community. In highly populated countries of South Asia, Community Forest Management and revenue generation through NTFP and ecotourism are essential for forest protection and conservation. The economic valuation of livelihood of forest dependent communities will be a strong positive indicator.

Two major indicators that need to be added to the global set of forest related indicators are biodiversity and Trees Outside Forest (TOF).

• Biodiversity, ranging from predator to decomposer, is a major indicator of health of forest. Tropical forests and rainforests have significantly high biodiversity and this need to be calculated for classification of ‘good and bad’ forest. Biodiversity or animal species per hectare of forest area is an important indicator to be added to the global set.

• TOF is presently a significant contributor to green areas of country. Plantation under Compensatory Afforestation scheme, highway authority, industries etc. are done mainly in areas outside forest. TOF is measured as green area in satellite data captured by Forest Department. So data on Trees Outside Forest will be a good indicator of ecological initiatives of governments.

We heartily appreciate FAO and team for embarking on such an important task which was long pending. Framing of forest related indicators along with water will be a significant step towards natural resources conservation.

Thanks & Regards,

Sejuti Sarkar De, Chief Coordinator, Society for Natural Resource Management and Community Development and Women Scientist Fellow of Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India

& Debasish De, President, Society for Natural Resource Management and Community Development and Adviser, Department of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of Nagaland, India

Online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators

Is the global core set, as it stands in April 2017, sufficiently comprehensive, balanced and short to achieve its stated objectives?

I do not have any suggestions for the addition or deletion of indicators. Modification/reformulation of indicators - What is it we are trying to track – the changes in amount and use of trees or the changes amount and use of forests? It seems to me that the former is more important. The FAO definition of ‘forest’ excludes tree covered areas that are used for agriculture, yet these areas store carbon, protect soil and water, produce wood products, can be disturbed, degraded, and ‘deforested’ just like a teak or eucalyptus plantation which would count as ‘forest’. So why not include?

Regardless of what lands are included if the indicators are to be monitored over time or compared with indicators from another location then there needs to be some very specific definitions and measureable thresholds for terms like ‘forest’, ‘forest area’, ‘protected area’, ‘disturbed area’, ‘degraded area’, etc. For example, does the removal of a single tree constitute a disturbance or degradation? If not, how many trees need to be removed before the area is classified as disturbed, degraded or even deforested?

My comments on specific indicators are given below. Thank you for the opportunity to review and please forgive the rantings of an old man. Cheers, Gyde.

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.

• 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.

Thank you all

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear CPF team. I am sorry I was not able to post before May 14th, but have been thinking about indicators for forests' contribute to food security and nutrition for a long time so I will post now.

Indicators forests' contribute to food security and nutrition can and should be incorporated into both FSN data tools and Forest monitoring tools. Below I will list both, with the ones I think are the easiest (requiring the least resources and adaptation of existing tools) listed first.

Potential Indicators from FSN data:

• Percent of fruits, vegetables and animal source foods in the diet from wild species or tree species. By frequency or weight. Would require better identification of less common foods in dietary survives (e.g. less common foods are often grouped into "other vegetable" categories).
• Percent of fruits, vegetables and animal source foods in the diet from forests, agroforests or uncultivated lands. By frequency or weight. Would require asking the source of foods in dietary survives.
• Percent of fruits, vegetables and animal source foods available in community/ region/ or market that come from forests, agroforests or uncultivated lands. By frequency or weight. Would require asking the source of foods in market survives. Given the push to improve nutrition and food system data available globally, with a focus on improving data collection for the monitoring of food prices for nutritionally important foods such as fruits and vegetables, this might be easily included as well.

Potential Indicators from Forestry data:

• Collection of non-wood-forest products, with a focus on those used as fruits, vegetables and animal source foods. By frequency or weight. Systematic collection of data on weight of wild fruits and vegetables could be incorporated into FAOSTATs on food production and food available for consumption, allowing for accurate tracing of the contribution of forest foods to diet quality.
• Number of percentage of population consuming forest foods (and ideally the amount of frequency of consumption).
• Number of percentage of population collecting forest foods (and ideally the amount of frequency of consumption).

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.

I would be happy to contribute further if there are ways I can be helpful,

Thanks, Dr. Bronwen Powell, Pennsylvania State University

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

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

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

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

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