Dear Sejuti Sarkar De and Debasish De,
Thank you for your detailed suggestions for an Indian perspective, backed up by hard data.
To start from your suggestions for additions:
- A direct measure of biodiversity is indeed missing as it has so far proved impossible to find one which is globally applicable and realistically measurable. Proxies include policy instruments (protected areas, stakeholder participation, certification, all in the draft global set), and in some areas, numbers of species/threatened species, deadwood/hectare. Can we do better?
- Many have drawn attention to trees outside the forest, and FRA collects data on them. However, the type and use of TOF varies widely between regions, from food production, to shade in cities etc., so the true meaning of statistics on trees outside the forest has been hard to measure. In the circumstances, is it sufficiently important/meaningful to merit inclusion in the short list f the 15 core indicators?
A few brief reactions to your detailed comments:
#2 Practices do vary very widely on how to define “protected areas”. However, guidelines are available, notably from IUCN.
#3 At a national or global level measurements in kg would lead to excessive detail
#4 There are indeed many problems in defining “designated” objectives in multi-function forests, which have been discussed at length in the context of FRA. In India, it may well be OK to use “Forest area (in ha.) under watershed management plan”.
#5 “Employment” is indeed difficult to define, and it is hard to set the boundary lines for what is covered. “Employment” is defined by ILO, but does it include everyone, such as the groups you mention. We should follow the international guidelines where they exist, even though many groups might be left out.
#9 I agree that “proportion of area” is more meaningful than area in hectares.
#12 I also agree that we need a ratio here, not just an absolute figure. Illegal logging should be included in removals, but, for obvious reasons, is difficult to report.
#14 Degradation” and “disturbance” are not quite the same, and both present problems of concept and definition. There is a high level policy commitment to halting forest degradation while disturbance is a part of any ecosystem, so perhaps we should give priority to degradation – but how defined?
#16 Thank you for the data on India which clearly show the importance of NWFP for livelihoods. It is a big challenge to “zoom out” from local and national levels to find something which is usable at the global level, because of the multiplicity of products, each with its own measurement system.
Thank you again
Kit Prins
Facilitator
Mr. Christopher Prins