FAO
FSN Forum

Consultation No. 140  

Online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators

until 21 May 2017

iconHow to participate

Send your contribution to
FSN-moderator@fao.org
or post it on the
FSN Forum website www.fao.org/fsnforum

CPF

Dear Experts,

The online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators organized by the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) and the FSN Forum is well underway.

Below you can find a feedback from the consultation's facilitator, Mr Kit Prins, and short summaries of the comments shared by the participants. There you will also find a link to the replies the facilitator addressed to individual commenters.

We look forward to keep receiving your comments on the proposed global core set of forest-related indicators, developed to improve coordination of forest-related indicators. The consultation will be open until 21 May 2017 on the FSN Forum, where you can find all information also in French and Spanish.

To participate, you can send your comments via email to
FSN-moderator@fao.org or post them directly online upon registration to the FSN Forum.

For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at FSN-moderator@fao.org.

We look forward to keep receiving your thoughts and comments,

Best regards,

Your FSN Forum Team

Feedback from the Kit Prins, facilitator of the online consultation

Dear all,

Comments have all been positive and constructive.
UNFF12 in New York last week noted the process to develop the Global Core Set and asked the CPF to present the final set to UNFF13 next year. Eva Muller of FAO urged people to participate in our online consultation. So this consultation should have consequences in the real world!
The main general points I have noted are:

  • The Global Core Set of forest-related indicators should be composed of meaningful indicators, not simply lists of parameters.
  • Biodiversity seems to be under-represented in the list – probably because of the difficulty of measuring outcomes objectively.
  • An indicator of livelihoods of forest dependent people should be included, but is very difficult to formulate properly.
  • Likewise coverage of non-wood products is weak.
  • Should we have more “economic” indicators (markets, prices etc.)?
  • Can we find a workable definition for “degraded forest”?

As a comment on the above, we must also avoid inflation on the list, which should not exceed 10-15 indicators. That means we should be deleting, not adding indicators. This is difficult as no-one likes cutting important topics. And every topic is someone’s favourite, in which they have invested time and thought. As Yeats said, in another context, “Tread softly because you tread on my dreams”

Kit Prins

CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED

iconEmile Houngbo, National University of Agriculture, Porto-Novo (UNA), Benin

Emile Houngbo suggests replacing indicators 4, 5, 8 and 17 with an indicator measuring the percentage of forest under sustainable management. He argues that indicators 14 and 15 could be merged, 16 deleted and indicator 19 reworded into “Percentage change in Total Economic Value (TEV)”.
He also proposes to add two indicators on forest biodiversity and on species undergoing overexploitation.

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconOamenii Padurii, Romania

Oamenii Padurii argues that indicators 14 and 15 should be merged and that a new indicator, measuring forest biodiversity, should be added.

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconArshad Malik, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Arshad Malika proposes to look also at factors like prices, markets, government spending and the use of forest resources.

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconJames Benson, Canada

James Benson suggests including some measure of productivity for tree and biomass products among the indicators.

Read the contribution

iconFrédéric Achard, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Italy

Frédéric Achard comments on indicators 1 and 3. He argues that neither “Forest area proportion”, “Forest area” nor "Above-ground biomass stock in forest” are good indicators to measure progress towards sustainable forest management.

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconAnke Weisheit, Excel Hort Condsult Ltd, Uganda

Anke Weisheit shares some ideas for improving the indicators 5, 8, 12, 14 and 16 in order for them to be, inter alia, more inclusive of non-timber forest products.

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconPaulson Kasereka, Environment Management & Systems (EMS), Democratic Republic of the Congo

Paulson Kasereka proposes to merge indicator 2 with 4 as follows: "Forest area designated and managed for protection of soil and water, including forest area within protected areas".

Read the contribution and Kit Prins' feedback

iconGaudencio Benítez, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Mexico

Gaudencio Benítez suggests adding an indicator measuring the percentage of income of the national forest sector in relation to the national GDP in order to reflect the importance of the forestry sector for a country.

Read the contribution

www.fao.org/fsnforum