Dear GIZ colleagues
Thank you for concise and realistic comments
A few reactions:
3 I agree tonnes/ha is a better indicator than just tonnes
7 FRA normally collects information on date of survey. I suppose that it is part of being “scientifically sound” to be recent!
8 Agree to propose addition of “effective” to the indicator – although few respondents would admit their NFP was not “effective”.
13 I agree that existence of a traceability system is critical – and easier to measure than illegal logging and trade. Furthermore, there is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests. I think it is impossible to monitor this without the existence of some sort of traceability system.
15 Thanks for the suggestions of contacts on measurement of degraded forest
16 You say, rightly, that this indicator is “vague”. However Global Forest Goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty[1] for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”, which is a very precise and ambitious commitment. Perhaps the indicator should follow the wording of the commitment: “Number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty”? In my view, the topic of extreme poverty of forest dependent people cannot be omitted from the Global Core Set.
18 (wood energy) the fundamental problem is that in some (developing) countries, policy makers want to reduce wood energy (because of air pollution, fuel poverty, overharvesting etc.), while elsewhere the emphasis is on expanding renewable energy, including wood biomass from sustainable sources. Given the generally weak data quality, and the difficulty of giving meaning to this indicator, not to mention the fact that wood energy is not mentioned in any of the global commitments[2], I am inclined to think this indicator might be dropped.
19 I agree that the time is not right to include an indicator on payment for ecosystem services.
20 You recommend to drop an indicator of recovery rates for wood and paper, and I have seen no strong support for this indicator, partly because it is seen as being outside the scope of a forest focused indicator.
21 You recommend to drop the indicator on carbon stocks and flows. I am rather reluctant as two of the Global Forest Targets (1.2 and 2.5) refer to carbon stocks and mitigation/adaptation of climate change. In my view, the key question is whether indicator 2 (above ground biomass stocks) is adequate to monitor forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation. As it stands, indicator 21, as the Task Force said, has too many elements. Could it be streamlined to refer to GHG sink/source of forests??
Thanks again for your contribution to the ongoing discussion
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Sr. Christopher Prins