Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

To Ms. Wolf-Crowther

Dear Marilise

Welcome to the Forum, and thanks for the precise comments.  I have set out my response to each comment below.

#1: Forest area alone or including "other wooded land"? I propose the former, to align with the SDGs. What "land area" means also needs to be specified: with or without the area of inland water? I propose the latter.

Yes, I think the Global Core Set should focus on “Forest”, leaving “other wooded land” aside for the time being, following practice elsewhere.  In general, the set should not reinvent the wheel but follow established practice wherever possible.  This reduces the reporting burden, and improves consistency between data sets and analysis.  Likewise for inland water: let us follow FRA practice

#3 could be simply the growing stock of timber on forest area. Biomass stock can be calculated fro this. In practice, the biomass of non-timber will not be known. In general, all variables needed for carbon reporting should be covered.

The main difference between growing stock of timber and above ground biomass is the volume of wood beyond the stem (which is roughly what is measured for growing stock): branches etc., which can be significant for some species.  “Non-timber” biomass is apparently not very large and certainly difficult and expensive to measure.  In general, however, growing stock in m3 and biomass in tons will follow the same trends.  The latter was chosen because it communicates better with eh “climate change community”.  In practice, the differences will be quite superficial.  However, above ground biomass has now been accepted as a component of the SDG indicator 15.2.1, which is unlikely to be changed at this stage.  So it is prudent to stay with “above ground biomass”.

#5 this and other economic variables should be in agreement with national accounts.

Yes, of course.  But beware the classification problems I mentioned to Mr. Benitez.

#6: rather weak, better "Are SFM policies enforced?"

Here we touch on the sensitive issue of effectiveness of policy and governance, which is usually approached indirectly (How many governments will answer “No” to your question?).  It seems better to ask governments to present, in a transparent way, what their policies are, and what institutions are responsible for implementing, and what resources have been made available.  It is then possible for analysts, of international organisations or civil society to bring the data together and provide a realistic, preferably non-judgemental, conclusion.

#8 is too general. I would replace this and #16 with 3 questions:

1) Size of the forest area inhabited by indigenous peoples?

2) How many indigenous persons depend entirely for their survival upon the forest land they inhabit, yet have no formal ownership?

3) Size of the forest area where persons who depend upon it for their survival can participate in forest-related decisions?

Indicator 8 is not primarily focused on indigenous peoples but on the mechanisms for participation, chiefly national forest programmes.  For this indigenous peoples are important, but so are civil society and the private sector.  Indicator 16 is indeed a major challenge, especially as “livelihoods of forest dependent people” are specifically mentioned in the Global Forest Goals and targets (Target 2.1 “Extreme poverty for all forest dependent people is eradicated”).  I believe that as a forest community, we should not try to avoid responsibility in this area, but address the major challenges which include: definition of forest dependent people, as well as defining and measuring livelihoods.  Clearly, existing forest inventory systems are not designed to answer these questions, so specific surveys will probably be necessary (in cooperation with efforts to monitor SDGs, notably 1.1, focused on extreme poverty and livelihoods, inside and outside forests).

#9 & 10 could be merged.

They are certainly linked, but certification is much more comprehensive, as well as being voluntary and market based.  There are also problems with defining management plans (do they have to be approved?  For what minimum size of holding?)  At present both these indicators are listed as subcomponents for SDG indicator 15.2.1 on progress towards sustainable forest management.  It is prudent to maintain the exact wording used by the SDG monitoring exercise.

#12: both removals and fellings are needed, as is net annual increment, the latter 2 for carbon reporting.

I agree that volume of removal (or fellings) is not very meaningful measured in isolation.  Unfortunately, many countries, especially with many natural forests, do not have data on increment, so to see the removals/increment balance, we have to look at trends in growing stock/biomass.  Se my response to Mr. Benson for more background

#13: both are difficult. Positive facts are easier to collect, e.g. "How much timber was felled with a certificate of legality?"

I agree that both are difficult!  Do all countries have “certificates of legality”?  And do they keep statistics on it?  My feeling at present is that the existence of a traceability system (for all wood, not just domestically produced) is essential to get at the proportion of wood from sustainable sources (another of the forest goals),and is relatively easy to answer on a yes/no basis

#14 & #15: delete and replace with

I fear we cannot delete 15 as there are strong commitments to halt forest degradation (GOF 1) – even though defining and monitoring “forest degradation” has proved challenging

1. How many forest tree species exist in the wild?

This question has proved (surprisingly?) very hard to answer in Europe, and I do not think it would be easier elsewhere.  Also, the meaning of the indicator is not clear as species abundance varies a lot between ecosystems, so it is not a policy relevant indicator

1. How any of these are planted for commercial use?

The motives of plantations are often complex and change over time

1. Naturalness: size of forest area with natural regeneration? Conversely, size of plantation area?

FRA collects information on area of natural forest and plantations.  As regards “disturbance”, “damage” and “degradation”, there are many difficulties in distinguishing natural ecosystem processes, such as wildfire or insect infestations, from external “damage” or “degradation”

#17: this should come from national accounts (subsidies).

Yes.  But subsidies are far from being the whole picture: “all sources” includes commercial investment, by forest owners and the financial community, which are not identified (except at the aggregate level, perhaps) in national accounts

#18: drop the "modern clean systems" and change to "estimate of fuelwood consumption in households in 1000 m3"; alternatively "gross inland energy consumption from solid biomass".

Or, alternatively, drop the indicator?  We all agree biomass energy is important, but the linked questions are quite complex and a single indicator may over-simplify the question

#19 is linked to #4, but is not yet viable at a global level.

I am afraid you are right!

Thanks again

Kit

Dear Mr. Benitez

Thank you for your suggestion, which reflects the content of several regional indicator sets.

I agree that economic and social aspects should be better covered in the Global Core Set.  Furthermore, data are available (this is tracked by FRA).  The problem arises with the interpretation of the results.  In fact the share of the forest sector in GDP is not determined by the forest sector itself, but by the rest of the economy.  There are many cases of dynamic and expanding forest sectors in countries with strong economies, where the share of the forest sector in the national GDP is small – and shrinking.  This is due to the fact that other parts of the economy (services, information technology, etc. etc.) are much larger and growing faster than the forest sector (typically the forest sector accounts for less than 1% of GDP).  There is little that forest sector policy makers can, or should, do about this.

Perhaps the economic dimension could be strengthened by an indicator of “Gross value added by the forest sector as ratio to forest area “(in $/ha).  This would also have measurement problems, notably the omission of forest related income not included in the “forestry and logging” part of national accounts (forest related tourism, teaching, research, subsistence livelihoods etc.), but, it seems to me, could be a good start.

Thanks again.  What do you, and others contributors, think of my suggestion?

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Dear Mr. Benson,

Thank you for your suggestion (and sorry about the delay in replying to you).

As regards the definition of forest used by FAO, SDG and others, no-one claims it is perfect, which is not surprising given the wide variety of circumstances and points of view.  However, it has emerged from more than 20 years of discussion and negotiation, and is probably the best possible at present.  So everyone should stick with it for the time being.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by “productivity for tree and biomass products”.  If you mean net annual increment or another measure of forest productivity in terms of wood growth, I agree this would be desirable – and this measure is often used, for instance in the pan-European indicator set.  The problem here is that many countries with a high proportion of natural forests (including Canada) do not measure increment, and could not supply the information.  From a (wood-focussed) sustainability point of view, the important thing is that drain (harvests and natural losses) is not higher than increment.  At present, it appears not to be possible to measure the different components of this equation for all, or even most, countries.  However, the net outcome of this interaction is changes in forest biomass: if drain is higher than increment, growing stock decreases; if not, growing stock is stable or increases.  This is covered by indicator 3.  So the productivity question is covered indirectly.

Thank you again

Kit Prins

Facilitator

Thanks to all colleagues as organizers or contributor.

1- C&I for SFM is very important issue not for the countries with high portion of forest cover but also for low forest cover countries (LFCCs).

Tehran Process Secretariat for LFCCs (TPS for LFCCs) dealt with this important issue from its early establishment.

LFCCs need and requirements should be seen in a real way of drafting indicators.

In current proposal text provided by Task Force (current list) related to items 1, 2, and 9, forest area and forest cover for different management goals, and we need to how it can be apply for LFCCs.

LFCCs refer to those countries which their forest cover are less than 10% to total land so it is not refer to density and forest cover. But normally forest density and forest cover in LFCCs comparing with high forest cover countries are low!

2- Another point is tree out of forest (ToF) which we need to have some indicator to be considered in national level.

3- Other important point is to lay on the results of national research outcomes, so it is necessary to add three columns in the table with title of (Global), (Regional), (National). By this means we can recognize the level importance and applicability in different dimensions.

4- I have done ten (10) years research (in two five years research plans) on consideration of C&I for SFM in Hyrcanian forest in north part of Iran. I proposed a little bit different indicators even is various location in Hyrcanian forest in Iran.

Best wishes,

Mostafa Jafari

Head of TPS for LFCCs

(Climate Change expert- LA IPCC, Member of Academic Board, Forest manager, and Plant Ecology and Ecophysiolgy specialist in Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands)

13 May 2017

Dear Kit Prins,

thank you for posting the indicators and making this discussion open for a wider round. Please find attached some comments from GIZ colleagues working on forestry. We hope this can help in the process.

Best regards,

Evy von Pfeil, Nora Krieger and Cornelia Ehlers

I have rather general comments with the aim to improve the entire system.

"Indicators are used to measure progress towards policy goals." This definition requires that "policy goals" are set, and "progress" is defined. (If policy goals include sustainability (they do), then sustainability also has to be defined.) In other words, there must be a concept based on which indicators have to be developed AND evaluated. All in all, what is needed to  see if processes are working towards policy goals is a complex system of theory, estimation and assessment.

Unfortunately, the current document on the Global Core Set of forest-related indicators only list some indicators without considering the above.

Below is an example for the possible development of a complex system in the above sense for a few policy goals (with Capital First Letters), involving a few INDICATORS (all capitals).

Let's say we want to maintain the yield of products and services that we get from forests of a fixed area (a broad policy goal). "Maintaining" can only mean maintaining relative to what rather dynamic forests can deliver. For example, forest characteristics keep changing even under an unchanging management system due to the internal dynamics of forests such as the development of age class and site distribution over time. Increment, carbon sink, total volume, total amount of deadwood, total water cleaning capacity etc. all keep changing over time even if the area of the forests does not change. So what can be maintained is a moving target.

But it is also true that this moving target is spoiled if forest area decreases. Therefore, the decrease of forest area (something unwanted) is against a policy goal of Constant Forest Area, i.e., a proxy used to expect a Constant Yield of Forest Products and Services. The RATE OF DEFORESTATIONS (in terms of area) can be a measure of how much the above moving target gets closer to zero, and farther from the above policy goal. However, if the situation is that forest area has been decreasing for some time, a rational policy goal could be to Halve or Stop the Decrease by Some Future Date. In this case, if the area decrease is less intensive than the policy goal than the indicator value is still negative, but should be assessed as positive (and vice versa).

In a similar fashion, if a country has little forest area and there is room to do afforestations, then a policy goal can be to Increase Forest Area by X Amount by a Specific Date. Then, if the RATE OF AFFORESTATIONS (i.e., positive values) is less then that, then the rate as an indicator should be assessed to say that the processes are unsatisfactory (and vice versa).

It must be added that, from a yield of products and services point of view, it does matter what types of forests are disappearing, or what types of forests (or plantations) are established. Forests are not created equal! Therefore, analyses should be done on more detailed levels, e.g., by forest type, species, age or diameter, volume class etc.

The above suggests that there may not be such a thing as a "global" indicator, only regional indicators, and a single global indicator can only be designed/applied if the assessment of the regional indicators can somehow be "summed up".

Also to note is that the "rate of change" type quantities are quantities against a base value. The same rate of change can mean very different actual rates with different base values. For example, deforesting 0.5% of the forest area can mean a far greater forest area loss in a year than the same rate ten years later. Processes are non-linear, which should be reflected in the description of the assessment guide, which should be developed for each individual indicator.

Let me now consider a system for a forest of constant area. In such a system, any addition to (afforestations) and reduction from (deforestation) the forest should be able to estimated, otherwise the assessment of the indicator values will be biased. In such a system, policy goals could include Maintain or Change Absolute Quantities (e.g., volume the area of protected forests) or Maintain or Change Rates of Changes (e.g., sink rate, wood increment, harvest rate etc.). There can be many of these, and it is not evident which of the possible set are important. In order to select specific goals for a pragmatic system, the importance of the quantities or the rates of change should be demonstrated.

It applies, however, for most or all of the possible goals that they are moving targets. This means that in order to develop appropriate policy goals, and in order to develop appropriate assessment guides, modelling may be necessary to see what the future values might be under a BAU and a "With measures" policy. It is clear that the estimates will have uncertainties that need to be considered in the assessment guide.

For example, let's say that we want to Maintain the Forest Carbon Sink. This sink is not constant over time (i.e., too general, anc can be incorrect), and may even turn to a source after some period of time, or under climatic influence etc. If the sink can be shown to reduce in the next ten years under an acceptable scenario, then the policy goal can be to Maintain the Projected Carbon Sink. Any sink that is less than this sink can be assessed as unsatisfactory.

It may be impossible to directly assess and/or model the required quantity/change. In this case, proxy values may be used. For example, increasing timber harvest usually results in the reduction of the forest carbon sink, therefore, the forest carbon sink might (partially) be monitored by estimating and assessing TOTAL TIMBER HARVEST RATE against the policy goal of Not Increasing Timber Harvest. In case such a proxy value is used, the concept of the indicator and its assessment should clearly demonstrate why it is applied, and under what conditions it can be used as a proxy.

Finally, the current list of indicators includes qualitative ones such as the "Existence of policies supporting SFM". In my view, this is very weak. For one, SFM has not defined well. To me, sustainability is a quantitative thing, for example, we can sustain area, volume, increment. The concept of "sustained yield" captures this approach. In the history of forest management, people first applied the concept of sustained area, then sustained volume, then sustained yield. All of them may, and probably are in one form or another, applied in practice. These are true sustainability concepts. The mere fact that, in a country, there is a Forest Act, does not say if that act leads to sustainability or not. Hard quantities may.

Again, the above were just examples. I believe that the whole system should be re-designed. I published a paper about a possible approach last year, accessible at www.scientia.hu/cv/2016/Sustainability_framework_Zoltan_Somogyi.pdf.

Global sustainable development is daunting because the socio-economic and bio-physical factors are varied across the globe. Within that context, the root causes and/or drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are complex and intricate. Therefore, an agreeable balance between the need to reduce the reporting burden and applying a relevant set of SMART indicators can and must be achieved.

Please note the following about the current set of indicators:

1. It is not based on any principles and criteria. As a result, it is arbitrary, subjective and technically unsound.
2. Several of the indicators negate the need to lessen the reporting burden. They include indicators 5, 8, 12 and 15.
3. Indicator 14 is a criterion.
4. Indicator 17 is ambiguous and should be combined with 11.

The entire set of indicators is critically flawed and must be overhauled.

My suggestions are based on internationally agreed common thematic areas of sustainable forest management (SFM). The thematic areas are:

1. extent of forest resources
2. biological diversity
3. forest health and vitality
4. production functions of forest resources
5. protective functions of forest resources
6. socio-economic functions
7. legal, policy and institutional framework

The respective criteria and indicators are shown in the table below:

Criterion 1: Enabling conditions for SFM (legal, policy and institutional framework)

Indicator 1.1: Existence and implementation of policies, laws and regulations to govern forest management.

Indicator 1.2: Amount of funding in forest management, administration, research and human resource development.

Indicator 1.3: Structure and staffing of institutions responsible for sustainable forest management.

Indicator 1.4: Forest area (ha.) under long-term forest management plans

Criterion 2: Extent and condition of forests (Extent of forest resources)

Indicator 2.1: Area (ha.) of forests committed to production and protection

Indicator 2.2: Area (ha.) and percentage of total land area under each forest type.

Criterion 3: Forest ecosystem health (forest health and vitality)

Indicator 3.1: Extent (ha.) and nature of forest encroachment, degradation and disturbance caused by humans, and the control measures applied.

Criterion 4: Forest production (production functions of forest resources)

Indicator 4.1: Extent (ha.) and percentage of forest for which inventory and survey procedures have been used.

Indicator 4.2: Total amount of carbon stored in forest stands.

Indicator 4.3: Existence of a log and/or forest product tracking system, or similar control mechanisms.

Criterion 5: Biological diversity (biological diversity)

Indicator 5.1: Forest area (ha.) within protected areas.

Indicator 5.2: Existence and implementation of procedures to identify and protect endangered, rare and threatened species of forest dependent flora and fauna

Indicator 5.3: Extent (ha.) and percentage of production forest that has been set aside for biodiversity conservation

Criterion 6: Soil and water conservation protection (protective functions)

Indicator 6.1: Extent (ha.) and percentage of total forest area managed exclusively for the protection of soil and water.

Criterion 7: Economic, social and cultural aspects

Indicator 7.1: Value and percentage contribution of the forestry sector to gross domestic product (GDP)

Indicator 7.2: Existence and implementation of mechanisms for the equitable sharing of the costs and benefits of forest management

Indicator 7.3: Extent to which tenure and user rights of communities and indigenous peoples over publicly owned forests are recognized and practiced

I hope my suggestions are useful.

Reference: International Tropical Timber Organization, 2005. Revised ITTO Criteria and Indicators for the sustainable management of tropical forest, including reporting format. ITTO Policy development series No. 15

Dear Moderator,

I was very happy to receive yor quick reply on my comments. Here's attached my reaction on your reply.

Best regards.

#1: Forest area alone or including "other wooded land"? I propose the former, to align with the SDGs. What "land area" means also needs to be specified: with or without the area of inland water? I propose the latter.

#3 could be simply the growing stock of timber on forest area. Biomass stock can be calculated fro this. In practice, the biomass of non-timber will not be known. In general, all variables needed for carbon reporting should be covered. 

#5 this and other economic variables should be in agreement with national accounts.

#6: rather weak, better "Are SFM policies enforced?"

#8 is too general. I would replace this and #16 with 3 questions:

1) Size of the forest area inhabited by indigenous peoples?

2) How many indigenous persons depend entirely for their survival upon the forest land they inhabit, yet have no formal ownership?

3) Size of the forest area where persons who depend upon it for their survival can participate in forest-related decisions?

#9 & 10 could be merged.

#12: both removals and fellings are needed, as is net annual increment, the latter 2 for carbon reporting.

#13: both are difficult. Positive facts are easier to collect, e.g. "How much timber was felled with a certificate of legality?"

#14 & #15: delete and replace with

1) How many forest tree species exist in the wild?

2) How any of these are planted for commercial use?

3) Naturalness: size of forest area with natural regeneration? Conversely, size of plantation area?

#17: this should come from national accounts (subsidies).

#18: drop the "modern clean systems" and change to "estimate of fuelwood consumption in households in 1000 m3"; alternatively "gross inland energy consumption from solid biomass".

#19 is linked to #4, but is not yet viable at a global level.

Dear all, 

Comments have all been positive and constructive.

UNFF12 in New York last week noted the process to develop the Global Core Set and asked the CPF to present the final set to UNFF13 next year.  Eva Muller of FAO urged people to participate in our online consultation.  So this consultation should have consequences in the real world!

The main general points I have noted are:

• The Global Core Set of forest related indicators should be composed of meaningful indicators, not simply lists of parameters.
• Biodiversity seems to be under-represented in the list – probably because of the difficulty of measuring outcomes objectively
• An indicator of livelihoods of forest dependent people should be included, but is very difficult to formulate properly.
• Likewise coverage of non-wood products is weak
• Should we have more “economic” indicators (markets, prices etc.)?
• Can we find a workable definition for “degraded forest”?

As a comment on the above, we must also avoid inflation on the list, which should not exceed 10-15 indicators.  That means we should be deleting, not adding indicators.  This is difficult as no-one likes cutting important topics.  And every topic is someone’s favourite, in which they have invested time and thought.  As Yeats said, in another context, “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams”. 

Kit Prins 

Facilitator of the online discussion