Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

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

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

Indicator 2 may be merged with 4, as follow: Forest area designated and managed for protection of soil and water, including forest area within protected areas.

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.

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).