Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Consultas

Consulta en línea sobre el desarrollo de un Conjunto Básico Mundial (CBM) de indicadores forestales

Los bosques desempeñan un papel fundamental en la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición, proporcionando alimentos y medios de subsistencia a muchas de las personas más pobres del planeta, así como servicios medioambientales esenciales para la producción agrícola (El capítulo 4 de El estado de los bosques del mundo 2016 proporciona más información al respecto). Es por ello que la Asociación de Colaboración en materia de Bosques (ACB) está trabajando conjuntamente con el Foro FSN para organizar una consulta en línea sobre el desarrollo de un conjunto básico mundial de indicadores forestales, para ser usados no sólo en el sector forestal, sino también en un contexto más amplio.

Los indicadores se utilizan para medir los progresos realizados en el cumplimiento de los objetivos de las políticas. En los últimos años, la comunidad internacional ha formulado numerosos objetivos relacionados con los bosques, en un contexto de desarrollo más amplio (los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio y los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible hacen referencia a los bosques en varias ocasiones), en el contexto de los convenios de Río, y en instrumentos centrados en el sector forestal, especialmente el Instrumento Forestal de las Naciones Unidas y el Plan Estratégico Forestal de las Naciones Unidas. Todos los actores de la comunidad internacional tienen el firme compromiso de aportar la información necesaria para supervisar los avances realizados en el cumplimiento de todos estos objetivos de manera completa, eficiente, oportuna y significativa.

Sin embargo, hasta el momento, los diferentes indicadores relacionados con los bosques utilizados por estos procesos diversos no se han concertado conjuntamente. Esto ha contribuido a transmitir mensajes poco claros, y a una labor informativa demasiado pesada e innecesaria.

Para solucionar este problema, diversos organismos encargados de las cuestiones relacionadas con los bosques han estado trabajando para desarrollar un conjunto básico de indicadores forestales, con el objetivo de simplificar y armonizar los conceptos y la terminología, con carácter voluntario, respetando al mismo tiempo las necesidades de todos los usuarios potenciales. El resultado final debería ser una visión más clara y detallada de las tendencias, y una reducción significativa de la labor informativa. Tras mantener diversas reuniones oficiosas, celebrar un taller internacional de expertos en Ottawa, y desarrollar una iniciativa promovida por una organización (OLI, por sus siglas en inglés) en Roma, un grupo de trabajo en el marco de la Asociación de Colaboración en materia de Bosques está elaborando una propuesta para un conjunto básico mundial de indicadores forestales. Actualmente estamos organizando esta consulta en línea para que el conjunto final pueda beneficiarse de las opiniones de un amplio abanico de expertos y partes interesadas. Los resultados de la consulta en línea se analizarán en una Consulta de Expertos que se celebrará en junio de 2017, y se tendrán en cuenta para la versión final del conjunto básico mundial.

El conjunto básico mundial de indicadores forestales tiene como objetivo contribuir a los siguientes propósitos:

  1. Medir los avances en la ordenación forestal sostenible (incluyendo el ODS 15.2.1).
  2. Medir los progresos en la implementación del Instrumento Forestal de las Naciones Unidas y del Plan Estratégico Forestal de las Naciones Unidas, en particular de los Objetivos mundiales en materia de bosques y sus metas asociadas.
  3. Medir los avances en el cumplimiento de otros ODS además del 15.2.1, así como de objetivos internacionalmente acordados sobre los bosques en otros instrumentos, en particular mediante el cumplimiento de las necesidades de información sobre los bosques de los convenios de Río.

Nos gustaría que sus comentarios tuvieran la mayor repercusión posible. Por lo tanto, agradeceríamos que los compartiera con nosotros antes del 14 de mayo para que podamos presentarlos en la Consulta de Expertos.

Al formular sus comentarios, tenga en cuenta lo siguiente:

  • El Conjunto Básico Mundial debe ser exhaustivo, equilibrado y breve (preferentemente compuesto por menos de 15 indicadores).
  • El significado de cada indicador debe poder comprenderse inmediatamente a partir de su título.
  • Se debe definir un verdadero indicador, no simplemente un ámbito de interés.
  • Debe suponerse que, a corto plazo, habrá datos fiables sobre los indicadores en la mayoría de los países del mundo.
  • Debe centrarse en indicadores cuyo desarrollo puede verse influenciado por los responsables de las políticas, y no en indicadores contextuales o descriptivos, que no pueden modificarse a corto o medio plazo.

Para que resulten útiles, los indicadores deben definirse en términos “cuantitativos neutrales”, como ratios o tasas de variación. Por supuesto, las superficies o los volúmenes absolutos también serán necesarios, pero no son "indicadores" a menos que se definan en un contexto, y se les dé un significado. La consulta en línea no se ocupa de la calidad o presentación de los datos, ya que es responsabilidad de los diversos organismos, cada uno con su propio mandato. Por lo tanto, le rogamos se centre en identificar qué indicadores deberían incluirse en el conjunto básico mundial, y cómo deben formularse.

El Conjunto Mundial Básico es un trabajo en curso. A continuación, se incluye una versión resumida del conjunto, en su versión de abril de 2017, tras las aportaciones del Grupo de Trabajo de la ACB.

Haga clic aquí para acceder al conjunto básico mundial de indicadores forestales tal y como lo ha propuesto la OLI, con las sugerencias del Grupo de Trabajo y con el siguiente código de colores: VERDE: indicadores incluidos por la OLI en el conjunto básico, AMARILLO: indicadores que requieren más trabajo, ROJO: indicadores que deben ser descartados del conjunto básico.

Por favor, no dude en comentar cualquier aspecto del conjunto básico mundial de indicadores forestales. Sin embargo, contribuirá al análisis si se centra en las siguientes preguntas:

  1. ¿Considera que el conjunto mundial básico, en su versión de abril de 2017, es suficientemente completo, equilibrado y breve para lograr sus objetivos propuestos?
  2. En caso contrario, ¿qué debería cambiarse?:
    • ¿Hay que añadir indicadores? Por favor especifique.
    • ¿Se deben quitar indicadores? Por favor especifique.
    • ¿Hay que modificar/reformular algunos indicadores? Por favor especifique.
  3. En particular, sugiera cómo desarrollar los indicadores subrayados en AMARILLO (que requieren ser más trabajados).

La FAO y sus socios en el Grupo de Trabajo de la ACB aprovechan esta oportunidad para dar las gracias a todos los que participen en esta consulta.

Kit Prins, facilitador de la consulta en línea

Esta actividad ya ha concluido. Por favor, póngase en contacto con [email protected] para mayor información.

*Pinche sobre el nombre para leer todos los comentarios publicados por ese miembro y contactarle directamente
  • Leer 74 contribuciones
  • Ampliar todo

Gaudencio Benítez

Comisión Nacional Forestal
Mexico

With attentive greetings.

Following the consultation on the Basic Set of Global Forest Indicators it is proposed to include as an indicator:

  • Percentage of income of the national forest sector in relation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

This indicator reflects the economic and social importance of the forest sector for a country.

Best regards

Gaudencio Benítez

Dear Mr. Kasareka,

There is a good case for merging indicators 2 (protected areas) and 4 (areas managed for soil and water protection) as in many cases the regimes are similar and there is a lot of overlap.  Most areas protected for biodiversity also protect against erosion.  Also in many countries, all forests are managed for protection of soil and water (see the latest study on State of Europe’s Forests, where several countries point out that all forests are meant to provide protection for soil and water).  The problem here is that such a merger leaves one of the seven thematic elements (on the protective functions of forests) without its own dedicated indicator.  Is that acceptable?  What do the contributors think?

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Moderator

Dear Ms. Weisheit

Thank you for these suggestions from a non-wood perspective, which is unfortunately quite rare in these discussions!

Here are my comments

I agree we should try to include non-timber forest jobs, where possible.  Unfortunately most statistical data are collected according to standard employment classifications which refer to “forestry and logging”.  We should try to move beyond this – also to jobs related to services, such as teaching, recreation, tourism, conservation etc. which are clearly forest related (when they occur in forests) but usually classified outside “forestry and logging”.

We should indeed include academia and science in indicator 8.

Indicator 12 (wood harvested per worker, in the version agreed by the OLI) was an attempt to address the issue of productivity and efficient use of resources, which is stressed in the green economy discussion, but has not met with a very enthusiastic response.  The sustainability of harvest levels – obviously crucial – should be addressed by indicator 3, trends in biomass per hectare, as this would fall if harvests are too high

 I am not sure about your reference to indicator 14 (forest health and vitality), which at present has no subheadings a and b.  Perhaps you could clarify?

Do I understand that you propose as definition of “forest dependent people” those for whom at least 70% of livelihood comes from forest related goods and services?  This is a clear and measurable definition – although it would certainly take time to collect comparable data worldwide.  At present, there is no such definition agreed.  Here is something I wrote on the question in the background paper for the OLI:

"Forest dependent people  The second Global Objective refers to “livelihoods of forest dependent people” and it is clear that many millions of people, mostly very poor, are concerned.  However the term of “forest dependent people” is not defined in FRA 2015 and it is uncertain whether the dependency refers to economic factors, residence, share of income or ecological dependency.  Given the widespread poverty in these communities, and the importance of subsistence farming, it is also unlikely that comprehensive statistical coverage will be possible.  A recent article[1] considers that “there are substantial divergences in who the term refers to, what each of its constituent words mean, and how many forest-dependent people there are globally” and proposes an 18 dimension taxonomy for analysis.  The authors point out that “it is not intuitively obvious that either increasing or decreasing forest dependence in any of these dimensions is a policy objective that necessarily benefits the people in question or that is always desirable” Before correspondents are asked to provide information, clear guidance on these matters should be prepared."

We seem to need an informed discussion on the subject of an indicator for forest dependent people.  Contributions are welcome!

Kit Prins

Moderator

 

[1] Who are forest-dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions Peter Newton, Daniel C. Miller, Mugabi Augustine Ateenyi Byenkya, Arun Agrawal.  Land Use Policy 57 (2016) 388–395  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.032

Dear Mr. Achard

Thank you very much for these comments which describe accurately the difference between real indicators and simple parameters or data series.  Given the huge variety in different circumstances, it is indeed not enough just to provide data, even on a per hectare basis, without giving the indicator a real meaning.  There will always be countries with large forest areas and high biomass stocks per hectare, whose forests are not being managed sustainably, and others with small forest area or low biomass/ha which are sustainably managed.  I agree with you that if we are looking for meaning, we should focus (for many of the core indicators) on change over time.  The absolute data for area or biomass may not tell us much, but a reduction, either in forest area or biomass per hectare, is a strong signal to look closer at the situation.  There are circumstances where a reduction may be acceptable (e.g. average biomass per hectare may fall in the early stages of afforestation), but in general a reduction is a warning signal for analysts.  (Incidentally, it is not possible to say that while a reduction, for instance of area or growing stock, is “bad”, an increase is “good”: sustainably managed forests may be stable in area and growing stock, as no increase is possible or desirable)

Your remarks bring out the fact that the Global Core Set should contain meaningful, policy relevant indicators: it is not a questionnaire to collect data (although it does, of course depend on reliable data notably those supplied by FRA).

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Moderator

Dear Mr. Malik,

Thank you for your suggestions – and for broadening the discussion on the topics to be covered by the Global Core Set.  I agree that economic factors like prices, markets, government spending and use of forest resources are critical to our understanding of and policy making for the forest sector.  It seems to me quite unrealistic to look only at what happens inside the forest area, and ignore what goes on elsewhere.  However these areas, notably prices and markets, have not been addressed in depth by most of the discussion on sustainable forest management.  It would be interesting to have the opinion of other contributors on whether this type of factor should be included in a Global Core Set.

On the detail of your suggestions: 4 and 5 (government spending and fire damage) are included in the draft set, as part of indicators 17 (financial resources from all sources) and 14 (all damage/disturbance).

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Moderator

Dear Mr. Padurii

Thank you for your comments.

 You suggest indicators 14 (health and vitality) and 15 (degraded forest) should be combined.  I addressed this in my reply to Mr. Houngbo: the two are not quite the same, but both are difficult to measure at the national level.  The issue of forest degradation occurs in the high level goals and targets, so should probably be maintained.  It is clearly of the highest policy importance to combat and monitor forest degradation.  Do you, or other participants, have suggestions for a robust way of defining and measuring “forest degradation”?

You suggest a new indicator on forest biodiversity.  It is true that the lack of a biodiversity indicator is a weakness.  The draft core set contains several proxies for forest biodiversity, mostly focused on policy instruments to promote biodiversity: protected areas (3), policies supporting SFM (6), stakeholder participation (8), management plan (9), certification (10), payments for ecosystem services (19).  There is nothing concrete on outcomes, chiefly because no practical way of monitoring forest biodiversity at the national level, in most countries of the world, has emerged from the numerous discussions which have taken place.  Perhaps a major open debate should be launched on this topic (possibly for the next global core set of forest related indicators)?

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Moderator

Dear Mr. Houngbo,

Thank you for these perceptive and constructive comments.

Here are my comments, set out between yours

  1. I think the indicators 4, 5, 8, and 17 can be deleted and replaced by the “Percentage of forest under sustainable management” (say the usefulness of the forest for the environment and people)

Indeed, the main objective of many international efforts, notably SDG 15.2.1, is to monitor the area of forests sustainably managed.  The challenge is to define and measure this area, given the wide variety of national conditions.  Certification by itself is not sufficient as while most certified forests are sustainably managed, many sustainably managed forests are not certified.  Also, “legal” is not always the same as “sustainable”.  For SDG 15.2.1, an approach is being developed which combines essentially indicators 2, 3, 9, 10 (biodiversity conservation, biomass stock, long term management plan, area certified).  The UN Statistical Office working group on this is advancing fast.  It is clear that the Global Core Set of forest-related indicators would have to be adapted to be in conformity with the agreed SDG indicators in this respect.

2. The indicators 14 and 15 are approximately the same. We can just maintain the indicator 15;

They are indeed similar, but there are still differences. Mostly 14 refers to natural damage (pests, wind, fire, game etc.), while 15 refers to forests which have lost most of their ability to supply forest functions, often through human agency, notably overcutting.  The term “degraded forest” occurs often in the official texts, but no-one has yet devised an agreed objective way of measuring it at a global level.  Hence “more work is needed”, as we cannot ignore the many references to forest degradation in the high level documents.  Do you or any other readers have ideas, to supply a waterproof definition of “degraded forest”?

3. The indicator 16 is not pertinent and should be difficult to establish;

I think it is pertinent (Global forest goal 2.1 is “extreme poverty for all forest-dependent people is eradicated”), but it is extremely hard to implement, for the reasons set out in the task force comments.  Should we give up on measuring poverty among “forest dependent people”?

4. Instead of defining the indicator 19 like that, I propose to use the “Percentage change in Total Economic Value (TEV)”

This indicator was meant to focus on the specific issue of payment for ecosystem services, which is seen as a core part of the emerging green economy, and a correction of the exclusive focus on economic value.  However, as the task force says, this aspect is probably “not ready for the GCS of indicators” – which at present is too long, and should contain only indicators which are ready to go in every way.  I would like to collect data on Total economic Value of forests world-wide, but it could be difficult

5) I think you can add these two indicators:

- Forest biodiversity level (the Shannon diversity index can be used for that) to show the richness of the forest;

It has been a long struggle to monitor biodiversity at the national level in a standard way, and so far only proxies, (e.g. area protected or endangered species) have been used.  The Shannon diversity index seems to have quite rigorous data needs, and to be more adapted to particular forests than to national level monitoring.  Have I misunderstood?

- Percentage change in species under overexploitation (overuse) in order to indicate the challenge for the forest restoration.

I agree it would be good to measure change in species diversity.  This has been tried in Europe, but proved surprisingly difficult as national level knowledge of trends by species is not very good.  We should perhaps revisit this.

Best regards.

Thanks again

Kit Prins

Moderator

Comments on Global Core Set of forest-related indicators:

Indicator 5: Include Non-Timber Forest related jobs (Honey, resin, herbal medicine etc. related jobs)

Indicator 8: include Academia

Indicator 12: Relevant to forest health/cover is how much wood is harvested by the area of forest, not per forest worker

Indicator 14: Agree with b. as forests have more diverse products than wood and unsuitable harvesting of those can damage the forest (e.g. tree bark for medicine, mushrooms, honey, stakes, firewood)

Indicator 16: Agree on the percentage of total livelihood depending from forest-related services (food, shelter, habitat, medicine, building materials, energy, recreation etc.) - suggestion minimum 70% will indicate high dependence on forest-related services and products. This will enable this indicator to be measurable.

Frédéric Achard

Joint Research Centre, European Commission
Italy

Comments on Global Core Set of forest-related indicators.

Indicator # 1 “Forest area as proportion of total land area”

“Forest area as proportion of total land area” allows to produce / compute  “Forest area net change rate (%/per year)” if such forest area proportion is provided for different years, in particular at regular time intervall (e.g. every 5 years). Ideally, it would sound more convenient to provide  “Forest area” (in ha) instead of “Forest area proportion”, as (i) forest area is needed to compute Forest area proportion, (ii) is needed to compute indicator 3 in tonnes/ha and (iii) is more

However nor “Forest area proportion” nor “Forest area” are good indicatord to measure progress towards sustainable forest management. Indeed there is probably no relationship between forest area (or proportion) and progress towards sustainable forest management (e.g. Indonesia has a high forest area proportion but is probably performing poorly in terms of  sustainable forest management). The change rate seems more appropriate for the purposes of  this global Core Set of forest-related indicators.

Indicator # 3 “Above-ground biomass stock in forest”

The modification (tonnes instead of tonnes/ha) is justified as tonnes/ha can be derived (from indicator in tonnes and Forest Area). However, similary to comment made for indicator 1, “Above-ground biomass stock in forest” in itself is not a good indicator to measure progress towards sustainable forest management. Indeed there is probably no relationship between biomass stock in forest and progress towards sustainable forest management (e.g. again the example of Indonesia which has a high biomass stock in forest). A change rate would be more appropriate for the purposes of  this global Core Set of forest-related indicators.

However if original data are expected to be provided as most convenient solution to compute appropriate indicators (such as change rate), it is indeed a good solution to provide  biomass stocks in forest at regular time intervals together with forest area (indicator 1).