Online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators
Is the global core set, as it stands in April 2017, sufficiently comprehensive, balanced and short to achieve its stated objectives?
I do not have any suggestions for the addition or deletion of indicators. Modification/reformulation of indicators - What is it we are trying to track – the changes in amount and use of trees or the changes amount and use of forests? It seems to me that the former is more important. The FAO definition of ‘forest’ excludes tree covered areas that are used for agriculture, yet these areas store carbon, protect soil and water, produce wood products, can be disturbed, degraded, and ‘deforested’ just like a teak or eucalyptus plantation which would count as ‘forest’. So why not include?
Regardless of what lands are included if the indicators are to be monitored over time or compared with indicators from another location then there needs to be some very specific definitions and measureable thresholds for terms like ‘forest’, ‘forest area’, ‘protected area’, ‘disturbed area’, ‘degraded area’, etc. For example, does the removal of a single tree constitute a disturbance or degradation? If not, how many trees need to be removed before the area is classified as disturbed, degraded or even deforested?
My comments on specific indicators are given below. Thank you for the opportunity to review and please forgive the rantings of an old man. Cheers, Gyde.
Sr. H. Gyde Lund