Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dear Mr. Prins,

thanks for your reply. As far as I understand, the kew sentences of your reply are the following: "you recommend ... to attempt to replace the carefully negotiated high level policy commitments with a new system which depended only on the intellectual rigour of the designers.  Such an exercise would not be supported widely." Without going much into the details, I only would like to reac to their main points.

First, I think that rigour is not necessary because of designers, but rather, because of the laws of Nature. I also think that these laws cannot be developed from "high level policy commitments", whether they were negotiated by policy makers carefully or not, rather, they should be developed from the laws of Nature. Second, I am aware that we are talking about a policy process. But I am also aware that it already happened (e.g. in the climate change negotiations) several times that policy makers tried to formulate wishes, and then it were scientists that had to develop guidance, based on the laws of Nature, on how to comply with wishes in practice, and it were scientists in a number of cases that had to inform policy makers that what they want is simply not possible. I was just advertising my opinion about what you need to consider to implement a system that works. I fully understand if changing the system is not feasible at this point (although, as an additional minor point, I cannot fully understand how a system can be carefully negotiated if it is not a final one, i.e., when some indicators can be dropped, others suggested, and some remaining indicators changed.) Finally, you have not rebutted in your reply any of my arguments with counter-arguments, and as long as my arguments are not falsified I will continue to believe in them. This means that, if the "carefully negotiated" system cannot be changed this time, one option is that people in the process could at least start considering the principles and argumens I have outlined and, if found justified, the current system could be developed based on (at least some of) these considerations, together with the experience from its implementation.

With my best regards,

Zoltan Somogyi

C5, is difficult to get the data, as large number of people are part time employment in forestry; and for employment in logging, there will be different between the logging mechaine and artificial.

C15, Percentage change in area of degraded forest: there is no accepted definition about the "degraded forest".

C14, Forest health and vitality: % of forest area disturbed: is also a indicator that data collection is difficult.

C20, recovery rates for paper and solid wood products (volume recovered for re-use as % of volume consumed): it is not about SFM.

C21, Carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in forest land: net forest GHG sink/source of forests, forest carbon stock, carbon storage in harvested wood products (Tons C): it will take a long time for many countries to report it, it is not operational.

General comments: I strongly support the selection of only up to 15 indicators into a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related 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.

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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

Hello,

I am from China, and I have been involved in Montreal Process for a long time, I have comments about the Global C&I which are talking about.

1, It is very difficult for us to development a core set of C&I related forest, as forest is a very complicated ecosystem. From my personal point of veiw, even at country level and regional level, to evaluate the process to Sustainable Forest Management is not easy, we have to full consider the diffrerence of the economic situtation, the social develepment level and the natural situation for the forest growth. That's not easy to evaluate.

2, It is depend on the target, that means what we will use the core C&I to do? It will be operational or just principle for considering!

I like to discuss this topic with the expert from all over the world, as it is very interesting and very meaningful

Keep in touch

With the best

Sincerely

Jingpin Lei

Professor

TAC member of Montreal Process

Research Insititute of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry

Beijing,100091

Dear moderator,

the topic of forest-related indicators is very interesting.

Often, we explore C&I for SFM report (such as State of Europe’s Forests) when we have to make a report or congress presentation, but some information are not available or not easy to understand or not very clear (such protected areas, naturalness, regeneration, etc.).

In my opinion it could be fine to take into consideration some aspects, that often are useful for describing forest and forest management. For this reason, I would suggest to evaluate the possibility to include some of the follow indicators which still are not included in the Global core set:

• Forest mixture or tree specie composition;
• Extend of old growth forest (or forest which are not used since 50 years ago);
• Sylvicultural system adopted: % of different systems (e.g.: clear-cut system, seed tree system, shelterwood system, coppice system, selection system). This indicator could be very useful for describing how forests are managed and allow to evaluate in the temporal frame the variation among systems. The indicators have to refers to the amount of forest area available/harvested for timber production. This indicator will give also information about the vertical distribution of trees;
• Similarly, it could be interesting to have an indicator which reflect the forest management objective and which describe the extent of forest functions according their priority management at national level (e.g.: 85% productive; 4 % protective soil and water; 10% biodiversity; 1% recreational);
• Age structure and/or diameter distribution;
• Extent of forest area affected by illegal logging distinguished by natural events (e.g.: fire and other environmental damages) or human made ( e.g.: Weaknesses in forest governance);
• Finally, it could be very interesting, as regards the biodiversity, to have a value of the average abundance of tree-related microhabitat per hectare. I know that the last one is quite difficult and expensive to monitor, but it could be fine that forest policy will support the occurrence of particular ecological niches in order to support the conservation of forest biodiversity.

I hope that you can consider the possibility to include these indicators in the global set.

Best regards,

Giovanni

Giovanni Santopuoli

Natural Resources & Environmental Planning

Dip. Bioscienze e Territorio

Cda Fonte Lappone snc

86090 Pesche (IS)

Dear FSN Forum,

Please find attached my response to the "online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators".

Best regards,

Meinrad Abegg

National focal point FRA for Switzerland

-----

Meinrad Abegg, dipl. Forst Ing. ETH

Wissenschaftlicher Dienst LFI

Eidg. Forschungsanstalt WSL

Zürcherstrasse 111

8903 Birmensdorf

Dear Mr. Jafari,

Thank you for introducing the perspective of Low Forest Cover Countries to the discussion. 

I believe most of the indicators are fully applicable to LFCCs – it is the interpretation of the results which will differ between countries.  In particular the results of the monitoring might be able to support a case for increasing forest cover in LFCCs. 

Trees outside the forest are especially important in LFCCs (although their importance is increasingly recognised elsewhere).  How do you think they could be addressed in the Global Core Set (bearing in mind the need for a streamlined set, and links to high level policy commitments)?

The Global Core Set has focused on monitoring policy commitments.  So while research must, of course, be the foundation of the measurement, and the methods used must be scientifically sound, guidance should come from policy makers as to priorities for monitoring.  So I see no need for extra information - in the Global Core Set itself - on links between the indicators and research.  Or have I misunderstood your concerns?

Thank you for your contribution

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear GIZ colleagues

Thank you for concise and realistic comments

A few reactions:

3 I agree tonnes/ha is a better indicator than just tonnes

7 FRA normally collects information on date of survey.  I suppose that it is part of being “scientifically sound” to be recent!

8  Agree to propose addition of “effective” to the indicator – although few respondents would admit their NFP was not “effective”.

13  I agree that existence of a traceability system is critical – and easier to measure than illegal logging and trade.  Furthermore, there is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests.  I think it is impossible to monitor this without the existence of some sort of traceability system.

15  Thanks for the suggestions of contacts on measurement of degraded forest

16  You say, rightly, that this indicator is “vague”.  However Global Forest Goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty[1] for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”, which is a very precise and ambitious commitment.  Perhaps the indicator should follow the wording of the commitment: “Number of forest dependent people living in extreme poverty”?  In my view, the topic of extreme poverty of forest dependent people cannot be omitted from the Global Core Set.

18 (wood energy)  the fundamental problem is that in some (developing) countries, policy makers want to reduce wood energy (because of air pollution, fuel poverty, overharvesting etc.), while elsewhere the emphasis is on expanding renewable energy, including wood biomass from sustainable sources.  Given the generally weak data quality, and the difficulty of giving meaning to this indicator, not to mention the fact that wood energy is not mentioned in any of the global commitments[2], I am inclined to think this indicator might be dropped.

19  I agree that the time is not right to include an indicator on payment for ecosystem services.

20 You recommend to drop an indicator of recovery rates for wood and paper, and I have seen no strong support for this indicator, partly because it is seen as being outside the scope of a forest focused indicator.

21 You recommend to drop the indicator on carbon stocks and flows.  I am rather reluctant as two of the Global Forest Targets (1.2 and 2.5) refer to carbon stocks and mitigation/adaptation of climate change.  In my view, the key question is whether indicator 2 (above ground biomass stocks) is adequate to monitor forests’ contribution to climate change mitigation.  As it stands, indicator 21, as the Task Force said, has too many elements.  Could it be streamlined to refer to GHG sink/source of forests??

Thanks again for your contribution to the ongoing discussion

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Mr. Somogyi

Thank you for your clear and interesting contribution, and for stressing that indicators only have meaning when they are in a context of policy objectives.  Thank you also for reminding us how difficult it has proved to define sustainable forest management in an objective way.  (My own favourite definition is the one in Helsinki Resolution H1 of the MCPFE, but there is now a global definition approved by the General Assembly)  In practice, SFM has been defined implicitly by the various sets of criteria and indicators negotiated at the regional level.  The key word here is “negotiated”: although many processes started with the type of clarity you display, confusion increased as delegates compared their own specific national circumstances to the emerging texts, and complained vigorously when their own situation was not fully reflected (or their national reality looked bad according to the emerging indicators).  The situation has become more complex with the high level policy commitments which have an influence on the forest sector, notably biodiversity and climate, as well as desertification.  Even wider commitments (first the MDGs, than Agenda 2030 and the SDGs) have put forest issues in the context of sustainable development.  Thus it is no longer possible, at the international level, to start with a clean sheet of paper and draw up a set of indicators from first principles.  On the other hand, we now have a lot of formal high level policy commitments, which, taken together, provide direction for the Global Core Set.  The three most important high level commitments in this context are the Global Forest Goals and Targets in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, Agenda 2030 and its forest related SDG indicators, and the Aichi Targets of the CBD.  There is overlap and duplication between these commitments, which are  “negotiated text” with all that implies of complexity and sensitivity.  Nevertheless there are some quite specific quantifiable commitments, including to increase forest area by 3% worldwide, and that 17% of terrestrial ecosystems should be conserved for biodiversity.

I am afraid that to “redesign the whole system” as you recommend would be to attempt to replace the carefully negotiated high level policy commitments with a new system which depended only on the intellectual rigour of the designers.  Such an exercise would not be supported widely.  The draft Global Core Set of Forest Related Indicators should be seen firmly in the context of the high level policy commitments, and build on the experience of the global (and regional) forest dialogue of the last 25 years.

You also question the usefulness of the so-called “qualitative indicators” (in fact indicators of the legal policy and institutional framework, the seventh “thematic element”).  In many cases, indicators of outcomes (for instance a change in forest area, growing stock or biodiversity) have serious drawbacks as tools to guide policy: often the outcomes have multiple causes, so weakening the links with policy, and, in the forest sector, policy changes often need many years to have any effect at all.  It is established practice in sets of criteria and indicators to combine indicators of outcomes with indicators of the legal, policy and institutional framework.  Neither type is adequate by itself, but taken together they can be useful.  Of course, it would be good to incorporate some measure of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the policy measures, but that can be hard in an intergovernmental context.

Thank you again for your valuable contribution

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Mr. Mwanje

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive contribution, and especially for generating an alternative set of indicators.

However, there may be a misunderstanding, due to my failure to explain fully the context of this Global Core Set of Forest-related Indicators, which are based on the experience of regional and national sets of criteria and indicators, and took them all into account, after carrying out interviews with many major players.  The Global Core Set does not aim to start from a blank sheet and first principles, as that is no longer possible, after the lengthy negotiations and compromises which have taken place, inside the forest sector and outside it.  We did in fact start with the seven thematic elements which you list, but these have now been relegated in importance by high level policy commitments, notably the UN Strategic Plan for Forests and its Global Forest Goals and Targets, along with the Agenda 2030 and the SDG targets, some of which refer to forests, and the Aichi biodiversity targets.  These state, at a high policy level, what are the targets, and therefore what should be monitored.  The Global Core Set aims to synthesize, on the basis of these approved targets, and the forest sector’s experience with criteria and indicators, what should be measured, to enable coordinated reporting, and indicate clearly to those responsible for data collection where the priorities should be.  The list as it stands is organised by the colour codes used in the process (maintain/further work/delete), which has unfortunately concealed its inner structure.  I hope this can be remedied before the core set is finalised.  So the draft Global Core Set may not be theoretically sound, but it reflects the state of play in the global forest dialogue as of 2017.

I do not understand your reference to not reducing the reporting burden: data on all the indicators you mention (5, 8, 12 and 15) are easily available of good quality through the FRA.  (Others do of course present considerable reporting challenges).

Indicator 14. It is true that the first half is a criterion, but the second half (“% of forest area disturbed”) is a proper indicator.  Thank you for pointing this out: I think it can be fixed.

The overlap between 17 and 11 arose because the global dialogue at first focused on ODA (11) and then widened to “resources from all sources” (17).  At present data on ODA are more easily available and better structured, and so easier to handle.  However, I agree that there is a lot of overlap and we should try to combine them, bringing together data of different quality and different sources to generate a broader picture.

I do not have the possibility to comment on every one of your very coherent indicator set, which follows the “classical” structure of many regional indicator sets.  I would make a few comments:

• It appears to be only concerned with the forest sector and not open to cross sectoral issues such as livelihoods of forest dependent people.
• Some of the indicators would be difficult to quantify and aggregate (“structure and staffing”, “existence and implementation of procedures”), although the importance of these aspects is undeniable.
• There seems to be an implicit assumption that forests can be classified as production, protection, or biodiversity forests, whereas in practice, there are multiple functions and complex, sometimes mutually incompatible, management objectives.  Successive FRAs have encountered problems when they tried to break forest down by management objective.
• “Equitable sharing of the costs and benefits” is an important concept and mentioned both in the SDGs and the Aichi Targets (in the context of genetic resources only).  However, I am not sure how this could be monitored in an objective and comparable way without much preliminary discussion.

Thank you once again for your contribution

Kit Prins

Facilitator