Dear Mr. Abegg
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions.
Here are my reactions
GCS1 I agree that the significance of changes in area will depend on circumstances. Indicators do not provide objective assessments of “good” and “bad” trends.
GCS 2. As you say, “protected” is not legally defined. However there is a lot of experience, in FRA and IUCN of how it should be interpreted. In this matter, I think we should follow precedent.
GCS3 For reporting purposes, tons and tons/ha are both quite easy. However, this indicator should, in my view, focus on change in growing stock, as a reduction in growing stock in most cases implies overuse of the resource (I know Switzerland is an exception as growing stock is at too high a level).
GCS4 I agree that it is difficult to identify the importance of the protection functions of forests
GCS 5 With “forest related jobs” (not quite the same as “employment in forestry and logging”), it seems to me the challenge is to agree on what the meaning of the indicator is. More jobs can mean a healthy sector, or inefficient labour practices.
GCS 6 Yes, an explanatory note will be needed when information is collected.
GCS 7 Good point about need to define "scientifically sound"
GCS 9 I agree that definitions and interpretation of what constitutes a “long term management plan” is vital. FRA does have experience in this respect, so that can be the base.
GCS 10 You touch on a sensitive spot when you express concern about using certification as a surrogate for sustainability. I sympathise with your point of view. However, forest laws are not well implemented in many countries, and certification provides a visible and comprehensive guarantee of sustainability, which follows the wood through the chain-of-custody systems, even if many sustainably managed forests are not certified. For many people outside the sector, certification is the only way of reaching sustainability: some people proposed area of certified forest as the only indicator for sustainable forest management! In any case, at present certified area is in the SDG indicator for progress towards SFM, so it would be hard to exclude it now.
GCS 11 Yes. Several people have proposed merging this indicator (on ODA alone) with indicator 17 on all financial resources for SFM. This is probably a good idea, even though defining and measuring the other financial resources will be challenging.
GCS 13 You say a traceability system is often not needed. But is not the idea of traceability behind chain-of-custody systems and policy instruments like the EUTR and the Lacey Act, which are increasingly important everywhere? So the concept is applicable to all countries, not only those with an illegal logging problem. There is a commitment to increase the proportion of products from sustainably managed forests: I do not see how this can be done without some sort of traceability.
GCS 14 I agree with your remarks about defining and measuring “damage” or “disturbance”
GCS 15 Defining degradation is indeed a major challenge. The FRA 2015 approach (partial canopy cover loss) is not 100% satisfactory. But again, there are high level commitments to halt forest degradation so a means must be found to monitor it
Thanks again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Mr. Christopher Prins