Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición • Foro FSN

Re: Online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators

Christopher Prins
Christopher PrinsFAO Forestry Department consultantSwitzerland

Dear Rastislav,

Thank you for your comments and above all for linking the Global Core Set to its stated objectives.  In other work, I have prepared cross references between the draft Global Core Set and the forest relevant SDG indicators, the Global Forest Goals and Targets and the Aichi Targets relevant to forests: I can confirm that most of the targets are covered in some way by the Global Core Set, with the exception of food security and some of the institutional objectives in Global Forest Goals 4 and 6, which are not well adapted to an indicator approach. Coverage of  the contribution of forests to “social, economic and environmental development” (GFGT 2.4) is weak, chiefly because of the vagueness of wording of the target.

I would be cautious about splitting the Global Core Set into sections according the goals, as the idea of the core set is to achieve efficiency by devising indicators which can be useful in several contexts, thus reducing the reporting burden.

As regards your detailed comments (apart from indicators where you agreed with the draft):

  • #5 Several others also support including forest industries in the employment indicaor
  • #10 “Available for wood supply” has proved difficult to measure in practice even in Europe, and is not in FRA 2015: so it might be difficult to include. 
  • #12  I would also like to have data on increment.  Unfortunately, many countries, especially those with many natural forests, do not have this information, and it is not in FRA.
  • #16  It is clear that getting data on livelihoods will be difficult.  But can we ignore this issue, when there is a clear commitment to eradicate extreme poverty of forest dependent people?
  • #21  At this stage, the Global Core Set does not specify where the data would come from.  Clearly on carbon/GHG stocks and flows UNFCCC would be a major source

On the additional indicators you propose:

  • Naturalness data are available and provide important context.  However, it is hard to see how management and policy can influence this in the short term.
  • Data on genetic diversity are indeed important, and are slowly improving in Europe (hanks to effective cooperation with a specialised institution), although problems remain.  Is it realsitic to expand this to the global level?

Thank you again

Kit Prins

Facilitator