Dear Mr. Somogyi
Thank you for your clear and interesting contribution, and for stressing that indicators only have meaning when they are in a context of policy objectives. Thank you also for reminding us how difficult it has proved to define sustainable forest management in an objective way. (My own favourite definition is the one in Helsinki Resolution H1 of the MCPFE, but there is now a global definition approved by the General Assembly) In practice, SFM has been defined implicitly by the various sets of criteria and indicators negotiated at the regional level. The key word here is “negotiated”: although many processes started with the type of clarity you display, confusion increased as delegates compared their own specific national circumstances to the emerging texts, and complained vigorously when their own situation was not fully reflected (or their national reality looked bad according to the emerging indicators). The situation has become more complex with the high level policy commitments which have an influence on the forest sector, notably biodiversity and climate, as well as desertification. Even wider commitments (first the MDGs, than Agenda 2030 and the SDGs) have put forest issues in the context of sustainable development. Thus it is no longer possible, at the international level, to start with a clean sheet of paper and draw up a set of indicators from first principles. On the other hand, we now have a lot of formal high level policy commitments, which, taken together, provide direction for the Global Core Set. The three most important high level commitments in this context are the Global Forest Goals and Targets in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, Agenda 2030 and its forest related SDG indicators, and the Aichi Targets of the CBD. There is overlap and duplication between these commitments, which are “negotiated text” with all that implies of complexity and sensitivity. Nevertheless there are some quite specific quantifiable commitments, including to increase forest area by 3% worldwide, and that 17% of terrestrial ecosystems should be conserved for biodiversity.
I am afraid that to “redesign the whole system” as you recommend would be to attempt to replace the carefully negotiated high level policy commitments with a new system which depended only on the intellectual rigour of the designers. Such an exercise would not be supported widely. The draft Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators should be seen firmly in the context of the high level policy commitments, and build on the experience of the global (and regional) forest dialogue of the last 25 years.
You also question the usefulness of the so-called “qualitative indicators” (in fact indicators of the legal policy and institutional framework, the seventh “thematic element”). In many cases, indicators of outcomes (for instance a change in forest area, growing stock or biodiversity) have serious drawbacks as tools to guide policy: often the outcomes have multiple causes, so weakening the links with policy, and, in the forest sector, policy changes often need many years to have any effect at all. It is established practice in sets of criteria and indicators to combine indicators of outcomes with indicators of the legal, policy and institutional framework. Neither type is adequate by itself, but taken together they can be useful. Of course, it would be good to incorporate some measure of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the policy measures, but that can be hard in an intergovernmental context.
Thank you again for your valuable contribution
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Sr. Christopher Prins