Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Dear John,

Thank you for your comments, and especially for the news that FSC and PEFC are working together to fix an annoying statistical/analytical problem.  The two organisations were the only people able to fix this, so we all thank you.

As regards whether or not to include certification as part of the Global Core Set, there have been quite intense discussions (centred on the issues you mention) not only in forest circles, but also at the Interagency and Expert Group (IAEG) responsible for the SDG indicators, in particular 15.2.1 Progress towards sustainable forest management.  At present the share of certified forest is one of the subcomponents of this compound indicator.  As long as that is the case, it would probably be unwise for the Global Core Set to diverge from the SDG indicator.

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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

Cher M. Keita

Merci de vos suggestions concernant des produits forestiers non-ligneux qui sont importants dans l’Afrique de l’ouest.  Plusieurs participants à cette consultation ont souligné l’importance d’identifier et de suivre ces produits, qui contribuent certainement à la sécurité alimentaire.  Cependant, je ne pense pas que ces produits ont leur place dans une liste des indicateurs clé au niveau mondial et qui se réfère aux grands engagements globaux, qui ne font pas mention de produits spécifiques.  Cependant, je vous encourage à continuer de souligner l’importance de ces produits et de suivre les tendances de production et de consommation.  Il sera certainement nécessaire de faire une agrégation, pour le FRA probablement, de tous les produits forestiers non-ligneux, en termes économiques ou physiques ($, tonnes) pour démontrer l’importance de ce secteur.

Merci

Kit Prins

Facilitateur

Dear Ms. Ehlers

Thank you deepening the discussion about wood energy.  I very much agree with your description of why it is important, and the way this important topic falls into a “gap” between forest and energy policies (you say “there is not much dialogue between the two sectors”: in Europe, that is quite an understatement – and the energy sector has the financial resources).  Wood energy is also an issue where the whole discussion is radically different in developed and developing countries (or even regions within countries).

I would also like an indicator of demand, supply and sustainability of supply for wood energy, but I fear this might be complex in practice as all wood can be burned, and the main tension is often between uses of wood, not total harvest levels.  On balance, I agree with your last sentence: that it wood energy may not need to be included in Global Core Set of forest related indicators, but should be carefully monitored at the national level and incorporated into all statements and commitments about policy for forests – and for energy.

Thank you again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Simon,

Thanks for the list and comments.  As you saw, a lot of them build on what was done at the Ottowa workshop.

I like your list, and that you had the courage to slash some surplus.  You did remove some indicators linked to high level policy commitments (e.g. on financial resources for SFM and degraded forest), but maybe that is the price to pay for streamlining.  That is not for me to decide.

On your specific comments, I have some responses

• You prefer absolute measures (e.g. forest area in ha) rather than indicators (e.g. % change in forest area) as the ratios can be calculated from the data supplied.  Clearly it is the absolute data which will be supplied to (for instance) FRA, but I do feel that it is necessary to define and agree on a real indicator, with a meaning, and a relationship to stated policy commitments. A set of indicators is not the same as an FRA enquiry.
•  It would be good to have a better indicator on biodiversity outcomes, but nothing has worked so far.
• You are absolutely right that interpretation of the indicator data needs careful analysis, taking account of national circumstances.  An indicator set is a powerful tool and needs to be handled with care and respect!
• “Employment in forestry and logging” although data are collected for it, is clearly not everything.  You propose including employment in sawmills and paper mills (which enlarges the scope of the set).  Others have pointed to informal jobs, as well as to forest related tourism, biodiversity conservation, teaching etc..  Another question is what these data mean: we all know SFM provides jobs, but do we want to encourage inefficient use of labour? Is more jobs automatically a good thing?
• Good point about subnational stakeholder participation (e.g. Provinces in Canada)
• “Long term management plan” was used in FRA 2015, so experience is available
• I see traceability systems not so much as an indicator of illegal logging (or the absence of illegal logging) but as a necessary support measure to back up statements about the use of products from sustainably managed forests
• More clarity is certainly needed on “% disturbed”.  You are quite right that “Forest health and vitality” is a criterion, not an indicator, and should be removed.
• I foresee a vigorous discussion about whether or not to include wood energy – which is not specifically mentioned in the high level policy commitments.
• The point about “payment for ecosystem services” was that it is a green economy approach.  But many agree that it will be very hard to measure or monitor.  “Value of wood products” is a more direct measure of one of the economic benefits of SFM

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Sejuti Sarkar De and Debasish De,

Thank you for your detailed suggestions for an Indian perspective, backed up by hard data.

To start from your suggestions for additions:

• A direct measure of biodiversity is indeed missing as it has so far proved impossible to find one which is globally applicable and realistically measurable.  Proxies include policy instruments (protected areas, stakeholder participation, certification, all in the draft global set), and in some areas, numbers of species/threatened species, deadwood/hectare.  Can we do better?
• Many have drawn attention to trees outside the forest, and FRA collects data on them.  However, the type and use of TOF varies widely between regions, from food production, to shade in cities etc., so the true meaning of statistics on trees outside the forest has been hard to measure.  In the circumstances, is it sufficiently important/meaningful to merit inclusion in the short list f the 15 core indicators?

A few brief reactions to your detailed comments:

#2 Practices do vary very widely on how to define “protected areas”.  However, guidelines are available, notably from IUCN. 

#3  At a national or global level measurements in kg would lead to excessive detail

#4  There are indeed many problems in defining “designated” objectives in multi-function forests, which have been discussed at length in the context of FRA.  In India, it may well be OK to use “Forest area (in ha.) under watershed management plan”.

#5 “Employment” is indeed difficult to define, and it is hard to set the boundary lines for what is covered.  “Employment” is defined by ILO, but does it include everyone, such as the groups you mention.  We should follow the international guidelines where they exist, even though many groups might be left out.

#9  I agree that “proportion of area” is more meaningful than area in hectares.

#12  I also agree that we need a ratio here, not just an absolute figure.  Illegal logging should be included in removals, but, for obvious reasons, is difficult to report.

#14  Degradation” and “disturbance” are not quite the same, and both present problems of concept and definition.  There is a high level policy commitment to halting forest degradation while disturbance is a part of any ecosystem, so perhaps we should give priority to degradation – but how defined?

#16 Thank you for the data on India which clearly show the importance of NWFP for livelihoods.  It is a big challenge to “zoom out” from local and national levels to find something which is usable at the global level, because of the multiplicity of products, each with its own measurement system. 

Thank you again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Dr. Powell,

Thank you very much for positive suggestions on forests’ contribution to food security, which is definitely covered inadequately by the Global Core Set, especially as Global Forest Target 2.3 specifically refers to “the contribution of forests and trees to food security”.  The question is actually “can we supply meaningful information, in a simple indicator, for use at the global level, in the short term?”  This is not my area of expertise, but the indicators you propose seem to be more the building blocks than the big picture: they are all measurable at the survey level, but can they be scaled up to the national level, and how do you combine them to cast light on the question of how much forests contribute to food security?  You say “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”.  (Incidentally, it seems to me that forests’ contribution to food security is wider than forest foods.)   To me, this means that, regretfully, at this stage, we cannot propose an indicator on food security for the Global Core Set, but that work is urgently needed, in the right circles, to generate such an indicator with supporting methodology and definitions.  Perhaps such work could start from your proposals?

Thank you again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

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

Spanish version

Quisiera proponer indicadores que den cuenta de la valoración de los bosques más allá de su extensión y de la producción de madera. Sugiero considerar en la discusión:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Producción total de productos forestales no madereros

Fundamento: Este indicador ofrece información sobre los productos forestales no madereros que ilustra la importancia de los bosques como una fuente de este tipo de productos para la sociedad.

Superficie y porcentaje de bosques disponibles y/o manejados para la recreación pública y el turismo.

Fundamento: Este indicador proporciona información sobre la superficie y el grado en el cual los bosques están disponibles y/o son manejados para actividades recreativas y turísticas. La disponibilidad y el manejo de los bosques para estas actividades es un reflejo del reconocimiento de la sociedad al valor de los bosques para la recreación y el turismo.

English version

I would like to propose indicators that give an idea of the value of forests beyond their area / extent and of timber production. I suggest considering in the discussion the two following proposal:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total production of non-wood forest products

Rationale: This indicator provides information on non-wood forest products that illustrates the importance of forests as a source of these products to people.

Area and percent of forests available and / or managed for public recreation and tourism.

Rationale: This indicator provides information on the area and extent of forests are available and / or managed for recreation and tourism activities. The availability and management of forests for these activities is a reflection of society's recognition of the value of forests for recreation and tourism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best regards from Chile

Dear Moderator,

Please find attached our response to the CPF Global Core Set (GCS) Indicator Consultation. These comments are provided by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Research and Development Branch with interagency consultation. Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment.

Regards,

Guy Robertson PhD

Acting Assistant Station Director for Science Program Development

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, OR 97204

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Submission to CPF Global Core Set (GCS) Indicator Consultation

Introduction

The following comments are provided by the USDA Forest Service Research and Development Branch with interagency consultation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GCS indicators.  The USA has previously been engaged in this process through participation in the international expert workshop in Ottawa (May 2016) and the OLI meeting in Rome (November 2016).  We are happy to see the progress made in producing the latest draft GCS indicators as they represent a marked improvement from the set emerging from the OLI meeting in Rome.  The current GCS is sensible and clear, though there are a number of issues still left to be resolved (many of which are already noted in the TF meeting comments). The ongoing need for revision, and the impactful nature of the GCS if and when it is implemented, points to the importance of developing explicit provisions for the ongoing adaptation of the GCS up to and, importantly, after implementation.

Strong linkages between GCS and FAO FRA where feasible are an important aspect of the GCS development and implementation process.  Several of our indicator-specific comments are derived from observations we have supplied as input to the FAO FRA process. These comments apply where GCS and FRA indicators are closely aligned.

Comments on Specific Indicators

Indicator 4: Forest area designated and managed for protection of soil and water. The various ecosystem services provided by forests are increasingly recognized, and many forests are designated and managed for a broad array of benefits. The current GCS (and FRA) emphasis on primary designated functions runs the risk of mischaracterizing and/or discounting multiple use forests in terms of their benefit provision, both for soil and water conservation and for other values.

The characterization of multiple-use forests has been a perennial challenge for the United States both in FRA reporting and in reporting out for the Montréal Process’s Criterion 4 (which focuses on soil and water conservation). We find that the true contribution of US forests to soil and water conservation is undercounted because this goal is not explicitly designated as a primary function in forests that nonetheless provide these services. A more complete accounting of benefits from multiple use forests is needed.  This would likely first be implemented through the FRA (for example, through the inclusion of subcategories listing designated functions, including multiple use), but the GCS Indicator 4 would need to be adjusted accordingly.

Indicator 5: Employment in forestry and logging. (This indicator follows FAO FRA conventions). Forestry and logging is too narrow an employment category to adequately measure the contribution of forests to national economies.  In the United States, for example, we estimate approximately 2 million people were employed in the forest sector in 2012, but our FRA 2015 submission identifies only 55,000 people employed in forestry and logging. Note that as the forest sector develops, a decreasing share of activity will be devoted to primary production such as logging and forestry, and an increasing share will be devoted to value-added production (this is true for agriculture as well). So employment trends will also be misleading, indicating declines in forest sector activity when the underlying cause may instead be shifts to value-added production. Finally, the amount and trend of forest sector value-added production is an important indicator of forest sector development in its own right.

As we strive to educate the public as to the importance of forests, including their contribution to national economies, we need a more accurate measure of total employment associated with the forest sector. This will require the inclusion of additional job categories in the FRA (and subsequently GCS).

Indicator 10: Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme. While we understand that third party certification can be one avenue to verify that a forest area is sustainably managed, we want to stress the fact that certification is neither necessary nor sufficient for assuring long term forest sustainability.  Other mechanisms (e.g., legal and institutional frameworks, public-private partnerships) are used widely.  And the enterprise level focus of certification is not sufficient to assure landscape-scale forest sustainability. Moreover, the adoption of certification is driven by various economic and social forces, and decisions by private land holders to certify their lands may have little connection to their desire and capacity to pursue sustainable forest management.  Trends in adoption may likewise be driven by factors other than actual SFM pursuit and attainment.

Indicator 10 is easily reported and therefore a potential candidate for inclusion (with the caveat that it should be accompanied with Indicator 9), but the underlying question of SFM attainment remains.  We feel that this indicator, and the issue it addresses, should receive on-going scrutiny and, if needed, adjustment

Indicator 14. Forest health and vitality: % of forest area disturbed. We note that this indicator is still in development (designated orange in GCS list).  Elevated disturbance activity has been identified as a principle threat to forest sustainability in the United States, and this observation likely extends to many other countries.  This is an important indicator, and its development should be pursued. 

As noted in the TF meeting comments, the measurement challenges for this indicator are considerable.  Breaking it up into sub-indicators (e.g., area of fire, area of pathogen-induced mortality) may be the best way to proceed as the combination of different disturbance types in a single indicator is very problematic.