Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Este miembro contribuyó a:

    • Dear colleagues

      Dear Kit

      We found the work done so far very interesting and we understand the need to have a limited number of indicators, specially for communication purposes and we are glad to contribute to the process.

      In our view, and as a general comment, it seems that, as the UNSPF/UNFF) has 6 Global Forest Goals and 26 associated targets, there is a somehow unbalanced approach in relation to the SFM criteria - Biodiversity shoud be reinforced and “non-wood forest products” should also be introduced.

      As an overall comment to the indicators, there should be a coherent line  in relation to the use of percentage in their designation.

      On specific indicators:

      Ind. 5 – “Employment in forestry and logging” seems that excludes industry, which is also relevant and we concider that logging is included in “forestry”.

      Ind. 7 – important to retain in the explanatory note that it "includes NFI and related information and monitoring systems".

      Ind. 10 – we share the view concerning “certification and certified area”, as certification isn’t an official policy instrument and rather a market driven voluntary tool.

      Ind. 13 – not clear what is expected concerning “traceability” in this context. Does EU Timber Regulation respond to this?

      Ind.14 – “Forest health and vitality“ is the designation of the criterion, not of the indicator. This indicator should use FRA references, although the Forest Europe indicator2.4 (forest damage) seems appropriate and describes better what is included here.

      Ind.15 – we agree that it is very unclear how to assess forest degradation, due to the difficulty to answer the basic question of how to define it. Degradation is linked to cover loss, carbon stock loss, biodiversity loss. It is, in fact, a “combined indicator” . Need for a baseline year, if expressed in “percentage change”.

      Ind. 16 – how to define? we doubt there are available sources for assessing “forest dependent people” or “livelihoods”.

      Ind. 17 – as for previous indicators don’t use “$/ha of forest”. “All sources” means private and public, as included in the GFG4 - 4.2) but we recognize that most of the private sources are difficult to estimate.

      Ind. 18 – consumption or supply? Forest Europe indicator 6.9 uses supply. “modern clean systems ” is ambiguous and complicated to define.

      Ind. 20 - we agree it can be deleted.

      Continuation of the good work.

      Conceição Ferreira

      ICNF, Ministry of Agriculture, Portugal