Hello Kit
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion and development of the core set of indicators. Development of a small set of core indicators will be very useful globally as we work towards the SDGs and also regionally and nationally as a mechanism to communicate key aspects of forests and forestry.
The core set out for consultation build nicely on the foundations developed by various C&I processes such as Montreal Process, ITTO, Forest Europe and the UNFAO FRA. Keeping the number of indicators to a small number is important. A key point here is that the indicators should cover all important aspects of forests. My view currently is that the biophysical apsects of forests are very well covered. Social aspects less so.
My main point on the current proposed list is based around how we link forests to people, communities, other land uses and sectors. There are suggestions of this link in the draft list across a couple of indicators - relating for instance to employment numbers.
I think the people aspect of forests needs to be further considered.
I will give an example fo my thinking here. The Montreal Process has an indicator:
6.5.b The importance of forests to people
Rationale: This indicator provides information on the range of values that communities and individuals hold for forests. These values shape the way people view forests, including their behaviours and attitudes to all aspects of forest management.
This is an attempt to capture some of the less tangible aspects of forest's values to communities - not just a forest community.
An example from New Zealand where I am based may help clarify the context. 28% of NZ land is in protected natural forests (Government owned), and 7% in commercial planetd forests (privately owned). The benefits of these forests is far wider than the forest sector and affects other land uses and also other sectors and industries.
The latest Hollywood movie - Alien Covenant draws heavily on New Zealand's natural environment as did the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies. Very significant value ($multi million) accrued to the producers of these films from NZ's forests - this sort of intangible and indirect benefit or value needs to be recognised.
Much larger than this is the impact of forests and our natural environment on New Zealand's largest export sector - tourism. Billions of NZ$ accrue to NZ annually, Millions of tourists vsiit our forests, spend money on accomodation, transport, crafts and souvenirs.
Additionally forests provide many benefits to surrounding land uses - this is more the tradtional ecosystem services concept - clean water, fresh air, recreation etc.
While payment for ecosystem services is recognised in the draft set of core indicators this indicator may be limited as there are many non market values associated with ES and PES is in its infancy generally. However there needs to be some way to reflect these values and discussion around the boundary for these values - we should not focus purely 'within' the forest we need to show the value fo the forests interaction much more widely. For example to evaluate the forests contribution to food security, tourism or even urban development.
So I think some further work and focus on how we incorporate these aspects within the core list will give long term benefiots and allow us to better work towards the SDGs and other sustainabilty goals where we need to consider issues holistically.
I look forward to continuing the discussions
Tim Payn
Dr. Tim Payn