Consultation No. 140
|
|
Online consultation on the development of a Global Core Set (GCS) of forest-related indicators |
until 21 May 2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
Emile 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 |
|
Oamenii 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 |
|
Arshad 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 |
|
James Benson, Canada |
James Benson suggests including some measure of productivity for tree and biomass products among the indicators.
Read the contribution |
|
Frédéric 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 |
|
Anke 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 |
|
Paulson 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 |
|
Gaudencio 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 |
|
|
|