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
Sr. Christopher Prins