Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

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