Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
3/1/97
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Headline: Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
Source: Taiga-News 20
Date: 3/1/97
CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT - WHAT IS GOING
ON?
Sustainable forestry and criteria & indicators are words
of the day in the field of international forest policy. In
this article, Andrei Laletin reviews two of the
international initiatives dealing with the development
of criteria and indicators for boreal forests - the
Helsinki and Montreal processes.
Over the last few years, considerable efforts have been
made towards the development and implementation of
sustainable forest management (SFM). The concept of
sustaining the yield of timber has been known for many
decades, but only recently has the emphasis shifted to SFM
which comprises environmental, social and economic
functions of forests instead of only their timber
production functions. The progress this far, whether in
the form of developing criteria and indicators (C&I) for
SFM, or developing and implementing better management
practices, vary considerably from one country or region to
another.
There is a number of international initiatives in this
field. For the readers of Taiga News the Helsinki and
Montreal processes should be the most interesting, since
they include most boreal and temperate forest countries.
The Helsinki Process
The development of the Pan-European C&I has a political
background, based upon Resolutions H1 and H2 signed at the
2nd Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe held in Helsinki in June, 1993. Within the
Resolution H1 (General Guidelines for the Sustainable
Management of Forests in Europe) SFM is defined as "the
stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way,
and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their
potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant
ecological, economic and social functions, at local,
national and global levels, and does not cause damage
to other ecosystems". Conservation and appropriate
enhancement of biodiversity was considered in the
Resolution H2 (General Guidelines for the Conservation of
the Biodiversity of European Forests). The development
of C&I emerged from the need to follow-up on the progress
achieved, on a national scale, in the implementation of
the resolutions signed by 38 European Ministers
responsible for forestry.
The criteria for SFM used in the Helsinki process are:
1. Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest
resources and their contribution to global carbon cycles.
2. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality.
3. Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions
of forests (wood and non-wood).
4. Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement
of biological diversity in forest ecosystems.
5. Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of protective
functions in forest management (notably soil and water).
6. Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and
conditions.
The adoption of these six criteria and 27 corresponding
quantitative indicators was confirmed in June 1994 in
Geneva. Their applicability was tested through a special
questionnaire, sent out to all European countries in
September 1994. In the test, the 27 quantitative
indicators were supported by detailed explanatory notes.
Some preliminary results from this questionnaire were
published in the first interim report of the second
Ministerial Conference. In this case, this can be seen as
the first approach to use C&I in describing some elements
of SFM on a regional level in Europe. At the last expert
level meeting of the Helsinki process (Geneva, May 1996)
it was decided to publish further results from the test
enquiry. Due to the achivements made at the national
level, this meeting also decided to proceed in developing
C&I for use at a local forestry and management unit level.
The Motreal Process
The Montreal Process Working Group on C&I for the
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and
Boreal Forests was formed in Geneva in June 1994 to
advance the development of internationally agreed C&I at
the national level. The origin of the Working Group dates
to the International Seminar of Experts on Sustainable
Development of Boreal and Temperate forests that was held
in Montreal, Canada in September 1993. Until now, tvelwe
countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the
Russian Federation, USA and Uruguay), representing over
90% of the world's temperate and boreal forests, have
endorsed the following seven criteria (and 67 quantitative
indicators) of the Montreal Process:
1. Conservation of biological diversity.
2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest
ecosystems.
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality.
4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water
resources.
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles.
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple
socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies.
7. Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest
conservation and sustainable management.
The eighth meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group
was held in June 1996 in Canberra, Australia. The meeting
examined issues relating to data requirements and
collection, and methods for reporting of the C&I developed
within the Montreal Process. Members agreed to the
establishment of an ad-hoc Technical Advisory Committee to
provide technical advice and review a number of data
related issues and difficulties encountered in the C&I
implementation. The meeting also agreed to a schedule the
production of the first approximation report for the
Montreal Process by September 1997. The ninth meeting of
the Working Group is scheduled for May 1997 in the
Republic of Korea.
The Russian Federation is the only country that is a
member of both the Helsinki and the Montreal Processes.
Russia has proposed a list of the following 6 criteria and
40 corresponding indicators to be accepted at the national
level:
1. Maintenance and conservation of productive capacity of
forests.
2. Maintenance of acceptable health and vitality of
forests.
3. Maintenance and conservation of protective functions of
forests
4. Conservation and maintenance of biological diversity of
forests and forest contribution to global carbon cycle.
5. Maintenance of socio-economic functions of forests.
6. Instruments of forest policy for forest conservation
and sustainable management.
During 1996 the issue of C&I was discussed at both
sessions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF 2
in March and IPF 3 in September) in Geneva. The most
important forum for discussions on the development of
criteria and indicators at the national level was held in
Helsinki in August (Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria
and Indicators for SFM -ISCI). Initial discussions on
implementation of C&I at forest management unit level took
place at the International Conference on Field Studies in
Forests (Kochi, Japan) in November, 1996. Useful
information concerning development and implementation of
C&I may be received from the resolutions of these
international fora.
Suggestions for the future
I think that the most appropriate suggestions for the
future development of C&I are the following
recommendations, made by Bill Mankin (Director of the
Global Forest Policy Project) on behalf of a number of
NGOs at the Helsinki seminar:
1. Continue the UNEP/FAO regional consultations to cover
additional regions, and ensure greater NGO and other
expert involvement as well as procedures for follow-up and
continual improvement.
2. Seek comparability in terminology, testing and
reporting methodology among the different initiatives.
3. Establish a mechanism/network for close consultation
among the regional processes.
4. Enhance the sharing of information, especially on the
results of implementation, e.g. through development of
regional and international mechanisms to collect and
integrate the data from C&I processes and make it
widely available on a timely and updated basis.
5. Enhance work at the national level, especially in the
involvement of NGOs and other experts.
6. Incorporate qualitative C&I into FAO's Global Forest
Resource Assessment.
7. Encourage the International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO) to review and potentially update its
existing sets of C&I, to ensure that they can become a
complementary and effective component in the current
international C&I dialogue.
8. Provide targeted assistance to countries to enable them
to implement C&I programs at the national level.
ANDREI LALETIN,
FRIENDS OF SIBERIAN FORESTS,
RUSSIA
For a more comprehensive analysis of the Helsinki process,
see also TN no 18, p. 5