Dear Simon,
Thanks for the list and comments. As you saw, a lot of them build on what was done at the Ottowa workshop.
I like your list, and that you had the courage to slash some surplus. You did remove some indicators linked to high level policy commitments (e.g. on financial resources for SFM and degraded forest), but maybe that is the price to pay for streamlining. That is not for me to decide.
On your specific comments, I have some responses
- You prefer absolute measures (e.g. forest area in ha) rather than indicators (e.g. % change in forest area) as the ratios can be calculated from the data supplied. Clearly it is the absolute data which will be supplied to (for instance) FRA, but I do feel that it is necessary to define and agree on a real indicator, with a meaning, and a relationship to stated policy commitments. A set of indicators is not the same as an FRA enquiry.
- It would be good to have a better indicator on biodiversity outcomes, but nothing has worked so far.
- You are absolutely right that interpretation of the indicator data needs careful analysis, taking account of national circumstances. An indicator set is a powerful tool and needs to be handled with care and respect!
- “Employment in forestry and logging” although data are collected for it, is clearly not everything. You propose including employment in sawmills and paper mills (which enlarges the scope of the set). Others have pointed to informal jobs, as well as to forest related tourism, biodiversity conservation, teaching etc.. Another question is what these data mean: we all know SFM provides jobs, but do we want to encourage inefficient use of labour? Is more jobs automatically a good thing?
- Good point about subnational stakeholder participation (e.g. Provinces in Canada)
- “Long term management plan” was used in FRA 2015, so experience is available
- I see traceability systems not so much as an indicator of illegal logging (or the absence of illegal logging) but as a necessary support measure to back up statements about the use of products from sustainably managed forests
- More clarity is certainly needed on “% disturbed”. You are quite right that “Forest health and vitality” is a criterion, not an indicator, and should be removed.
- I foresee a vigorous discussion about whether or not to include wood energy – which is not specifically mentioned in the high level policy commitments.
- The point about “payment for ecosystem services” was that it is a green economy approach. But many agree that it will be very hard to measure or monitor. “Value of wood products” is a more direct measure of one of the economic benefits of SFM
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Г-н Christopher Prins