Dear Guy and colleagues,
Thank you for the detailed and balanced comments.
I agree with you on the need to build in adaptation/improvement processes from the beginning, and to closely coordinate between GCS and FRA – while maintaining their quite separate missions.
On the specific indicators:
#4 It is quite true that measuring the contribution of multi-function forests (i.e. all of them) is difficult, but necessary. This indicator is the only one on the protection functions of forests, which usually are not remunerated, and often (but not always) occur as a consequence of the pure existence of the forest.
# 5 We do need a more accurate indicator of “employment associated with the forest secor”, including upstream (forest) and downstream (industry) as well as forest related jobs n conservation, education, research, ourism etc. Getting this out of noral employment statistics may need a creative approach!
#10 We are aware of the shortcomings of certification as an indicator of SFM, and the need to intepret the results carefully (that applies to all the indicators). It is however very impactful and easily understood, which is presumably why it is part of the SDG 15.2.1 indicator, which the GCS should shadow. I agree that this indicator should receive ongoing scrutiny, and care be taken to point out that many sustainably managed forests are not certified.
#14 Share of forest area disturbed is indeed vital, and needs a lot of work, because of the specific characteristics of the different types of disturbance. Breaking it up by type of disturbance is probably necessary for the construction of the data, but at the “macro” level of the Global Core Set, it will be necessary to aggregate them.