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
Mr. Christopher Prins