Background
Efforts to identify criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
Implementation of criteria and indicators
Highlights of experiences and lessons learned
Conclusions
There is widespread recognition of the importance of ensuring that forests are sustainably managed to provide a range of products and environmental and social services in perpetuity. The need to reconcile the productive functions with the protective, environmental and social roles of forests was forcefully stressed by UNCED in 1992 in Chapter 11 ('Combating Deforestation') of Agenda 21, and in the 'Forest Principles' (i.e., the 'Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests'). In accordance with the calls for action, governments agreed to pursue, in cooperation with special interest groups and international organizations, 'the formulation of scientifically-sound criteria and guidelines for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests'.
Several international meetings addressing sustainable forest management have made declarations and recommendations related to the development of criteria and indicators, including the following:
· the 'Bandung Declaration', arising from 'The Global Forest Conference', organized by the Government of Indonesia (February 1993);· the 'New Delhi Resolution' passed by the international workshop, 'Towards Sustainable Forestry: preparing for the Commission on Sustainable Development 1995', organized by India and the UK (July 1994);
· conclusions and recommendations of the workshop, 'Science, Forests and Sustainability - a policy dialogue', organized jointly by the Government of Indonesia and the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (December 1994);
· conclusions and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, organized by the Government of Finland in collaboration with FAO in Helsinki (August 1996);
· the two meetings of the 'Intergovernmental Working Group on Global Forests' sponsored jointly by the Governments of Malaysia and Canada (April 1994, October 1994); and
· the Japan/Canada 'International Workshop on Integrated Application of Sustainable Forest Management Practices', organized in collaboration with FAO and ITTO among others, in Japan (November 1996).
At the third session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in April 1995, during which follow-up to UNCED in forestry was reviewed, the development of criteria and indicators was identified as being among the major tasks and priorities for the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (see 'The international dialogue and initiatives with relevance to forests' on page 101). The CSD requested the IPF, in collaboration with national and international organizations and institutes, to catalyse the further development of internationally-agreed criteria and indicators against which progress towards sustainable forest management of all types of forests could be measured and to encourage their implementation at national level. Subsequently, FAO has been the UN agency responsible for providing support to the Secretariat of the IPF in this subject, working in close collaboration with other UN and non-UN agencies.
The role of criteria and indicators Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (hereafter referred to as criteria and indicators) are tools which can be used in the conceptualization, implementation, and monitoring of progress in nationwide, sustainable forest management in its broadest sense. Criteria define the essential components of forest management against which sustainability may be assessed. Thus, collectively, criteria provide an implicit, generally agreed-upon global definition for the concept of sustainability. Each criterion relates to a key element of sustainability, and may be characterized by one or more quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive indicators. Through the measurement and monitoring of these indicators, the overall effects of forest management interventions, or non-intervention, can be assessed and evaluated, and action can be adjusted to meet stated aims and objectives more effectively.
Attempts have been made in a number of recent international initiatives to identify criteria, by which sustainable forest management can be defined, and indicators, by which the degree of sustainability may be monitored (see below). It seems possible to arrive at a globally-agreed core set of national-level criteria and indicators. While agreement on common indicators would facilitate international dialogue and country-based reporting on progress towards universally accepted goals, regions or ecological regions and countries may choose to develop additional indicators appropriate to their particular conditions. The indicators for any given criterion may thus vary between countries and between regions and eco-regions.
International initiatives prior to UNCED In 1990, prior to UNCED, guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests were elaborated under the auspices of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Based on this, ITTO published criteria for monitoring sustainability in tropical moist forests in early 1992. These were supplemented in 1993 by guidelines for the establishment and sustainable management of planted tropical forests, and guidelines on the conservation of biological diversity in tropical production forests. The guidelines are currently under review by ITTO in light of their use by member countries.
Intergovernmental initiatives for action at national level - post-UNCED
Since UNCED, criteria and indicators have been formulated through several international and national, governmental and non-governmental processes. The intergovernmental activities have been conducted mainly within the framework of a number of major international initiatives (see Table 1). These include:
· The 'Helsinki Process' (officially entitled The European Process on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management') which focuses on the development of criteria and indicators for European forests, which include boreal, temperate and Mediterranean-type forests. The mandate of the process was laid down in two Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Strasbourg 1990, Helsinki 1993). The European countries have agreed upon six common criteria, 27 quantitative indicators, and a number of descriptive indicators for sustainable forest management;· the 'Montreal Process' which was initiated in the follow-up to the Seminar of Experts on Sustainable Development of Temperate and Boreal Forests, organized in Montreal, Canada in 1993 within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The initiative deals with criteria and indicators in temperate and boreal forests outside of Europe. The ten countries originally participating, plus an additional two which have recently become involved, have agreed on a set of seven, non-legally binding criteria and 67 indicators for sustainable forest management, identified for national implementation;
· the 'Tarapoto Proposal of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainability of the Amazon Forest', which was adopted in February 1995 in Tarapoto, Peru, in a meeting held under the auspices of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty. Within the framework of this initiative, seven criteria and 47 indicators were identified and proposed for national level implementation in the eight participating countries. Criteria and indicators were also identified for the forest management unit level (an additional four criteria and 22 indicators) and for the global level (one additional criterion and seven indicators). The recommendations and conclusions of the meeting have been submitted to the governments of participating countries for their approval and ratification;
· the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Dry-Zone Africa, held in Nairobi, Kenya 21-24 November 1995. The meeting identified seven criteria and 47 indicators which have been presented to the subsequent session of the African Forestry and Wildlife Commission, and submitted to the concerned 27 countries and to Secretariats of three sub-regional groupings (Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel - CILSS, Intergovernmental Authority on Development - IGAD, Southern African Development Community - SADC) for review, comments, agreement and subsequent follow-up;
· the FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in the Near East Region, held from 15-17 October 1996 in Cairo, Egypt. Seven criteria and 65 indicators were proposed by the experts and were presented immediately thereafter to the member states of the Near East Forestry Commission in its 12th Session, which met from 21-24 October 1996 also in Cairo. The Commission endorsed this set of criteria and indicators and accepted them as a 'good working document and a working draft' which would have to be tested in each country of the region;
· an Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Central America organized by FAO, in collaboration with the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo, CCAD), held in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, from 20-24 January 1997. Cuba also attended the meeting in observer capacity. The meeting, which launched 'The Central American/Lepaterique Process', identified 4 criteria and 40 indicators for the regional level, and 8 criteria and 52 indicators for the national level. It drafted a declaration related to the sustainable management of the region's forests, which will be presented to the Summit of Presidents of the CCAD countries in March 1997 for consideration by Heads of State.
Table 1:
Geographic coverage of ongoing international initiatives
|
ecological region and initiative |
number of |
forest area a |
|
|
countries |
thousand ha |
||
|
temperate and boreal forests b
|
|||
|
|
Helsinki Process |
38c |
904 577 |
|
|
Montreal Process |
12 |
1 500 000 |
|
tropical forests |
|
|
|
|
|
ITTO Producer Countries |
25 |
1 305 046 |
|
|
Tarapoto Proposald |
8 |
540 000e |
|
dry-zone sub-Saharan forests
|
|||
|
|
Dry-Zone Africa |
27 |
278 021 |
|
dry zone
|
|||
|
|
Near East regionf |
30 |
69 895 |
|
all types of forests
|
|||
|
|
The Central American/Lepaterique Processg |
7 |
19 631 |
a The information is based on FRA 7 990 (FAO Forestry Papers 112 and 124), and relates to forest area of countries (excluding 'other wooded lands')b Some countries are represented in more than one initiative, notably Russia (forest area of 739 729 000 ha), which is included in both the Helsinki and the Montreal Processes.
c Refers to Signatory States to Helsinki Resolutions H1 and H2, plus those newly-independent Stales which have, subsequently, participated in the work of the Helsinki Process, and Albania, which did not originally sign the Resolutions but which has recently participated in the work.
d Of the eight participating countries, only Suriname is not a member of ITTO.
e Amazonian forests only
f FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, held in Cairo, 15-17 October 1996.
g Expert Meeting organized by the Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (CCAD) through its technical body the Consejo Centroamericano de Bosques y Areas Protegidas (CCAB-AP) in collaboration with FAO in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in January 1997. Countries included are: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
The possibilities and desirability of harmonizing ongoing initiatives related to criteria and indicators were discussed at an FAO/ITTO Expert Meeting held in Rome from 13-16 February 1995. While there was general agreement on the need to ensure comparability between them and to avoid wasteful duplication of effort, the meeting stressed the need to allow the initiatives to pursue their aims unimpeded, and in a way that would be compatible with their particular environmental and socio-economic contexts. The degree of comparability and compatibility of six of the ongoing international processes is indicated in Table 2.
International efforts at harmonizing concepts and terminology
Most of the ongoing international initiatives have elaborated definitions of key terms. Although the definitions adopted by the different initiatives are not identical, they are largely compatible. In spite of these efforts to clarify terminology, practically all recent fora have stressed the need to continue to intensify efforts to reach global consensus on key concepts and terms used in the international discussion on criteria and indicators, and to ensure consistency with terminology used in other forestry initiatives.
In response to the above recommendations, a number of efforts are under way to come to agreement on a common set of concepts and definitions making maximum use of existing, globally-accepted terms. For example, FAO is collaborating with the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) to review forestry terms and concepts used in some 25 countries in all regions of the world and in a range of languages. The first phase of the study is based on approximately 20 core terms and related concepts as originally defined in FAO's Forest Resources Assessment 1990.
Action at forest management unit level by governments and NGOs
Intergovernmental initiatives have been complemented over the past years by a number of activities carried out by both government agencies and national and international non-governmental organizations, related to formulating and testing criteria and indicators at forest management unit level. The activities of the latter include those of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), among others.
Links between national and forest management unit level activities
International initiatives related to sustainable forest management have, as requested at UNCED, been largely focused on the development of national level criteria and indicators. There is general agreement that work on criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level should be the responsibility of individual countries.
Criteria and indicators defined at national level (or defined at regional/eco-regional level and used at national level) are aimed at improving the quantity and quality of information available to decision-makers and the general public about trends towards or away from sustainable use of a nation's forests. The use of national level criteria and indicators will help monitor progress in sustaining the various functions of forests recognized in Agenda 21 of UNCED and in the 'Forest Principles'. Information on status and trends can be used to strengthen policy and decision-making to further improve forest management practices over time.
Table 2 Summary of criteria identified in ongoing international initiatives
|
criteria a |
HELSb |
MONT |
ITTO |
TARA |
Dry-Zone Africa |
Near East |
|
|
LEVELS |
|||||||
|
|
forest management unit level |
no |
no |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
|
|
national level |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
|
global level |
no |
no |
no |
yes |
no |
yes |
|
THEMATIC CATEGORIES |
|||||||
|
forest resources
|
|||||||
|
|
extent of forest resources |
yes |
-c |
yes |
-e |
yes |
yes |
|
|
global carbon cycles |
yes |
yes |
no |
no |
-f |
no |
|
|
forest ecosystem health, vitality |
yes |
yes |
no |
- |
yes |
yesg |
|
|
biological diversity |
yes |
yes |
-d |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
forest functions |
|||||||
|
|
productive functions of forests |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
|
protective and environmental functions |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
development and social needs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
socio-economic functions and conditions |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
|
|
institutional framework |
|||||||
|
|
policy and legal framework; capacity to implement sustainable forest management |
yesh |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
yes |
a While maintaining the overall meaning of the concepts, the terminology does not necessarily follow the exact wording of the individual initiatives.b The following abbreviations are used in the table: HELS for the European Process: MONT for the Montreal Process; TAPA for the Tarapoto Process: DryZ Africa for the proposal for the sub-Saharan dry zone African countries and NEAP EAST for the Near East region countries. The denomination 'yes' means that the criterion is explicitly mentioned in the initiative in question: a dash (-), signifies that a criterion is not fully enunciated, although it may have been explicitly considered; and the denomination 'no' signifies that no explicit or implicit reference has been made to the criterion in question.
c In the Montreal Process, the forest resource is not considered a separate criterion, but an indicator for two other criteria: (i) conservation of biological diversity;and (ii) maintenance of the productive capacity of forest ecosystems. d ITTO developed a set of supplementary 'Guidelines' addressing the issue of biological diversity rather than including this as a criterion in its forest management guidelines.
e In the Tarapoto Proposal the criteria 'Extent of Forest Resources' and 'Biological Diversity', are merged into one single criterion 'Conservation of Forest Cover and of Biological Diversity'.
f In the Dry-Zone Africa proposal, the criteria 'Global Carbon Cycles' and 'Extent of Forest Resources' are merged into one single criterion,
g For the Near East proposal, this criterion includes also 'integrity' of ecosystems.
h In the Helsinki Process, the institutional framework criterion is included through descriptive indicators attached to each of the six other criteria.
The application of criteria and indicators at the national level can stimulate and help guide the identification of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level, and vice versa. Assessments related to internationally-agreed definitions of sustainability at the forest management unit level should contribute directly to improving on-the-ground forest management practices and can, in turn, help clarify issues related to environment and trade in forest products, including forest product certification.
While certain criteria are only applicable at national level (e.g., those related to the balance between different uses of the forest or to national policies), many other national-level criteria are based on aggregated data on indicators collected at forest management unit level.
It should be noted that, although each individual forest management unit may not satisfy all national and international criteria for sustainability, the overall national criteria may still be satisfied. Examples of this include criteria related to carbon sequestration and the conservation of biological diversity at ecosystem, species and within-species levels, in which limited forest areas can contribute towards specified national needs but cannot satisfy these needs individually.
National level
Once identified, criteria and indicators need to be tested at field level and implemented on a pilot scale. It is the countries' responsibility to reconfirm the relevance of defined criteria and indicators in the light of prevailing environmental, economic, social and institutional realities, and to ensure their adoption by all parties concerned. Countries are also responsible for reviewing and testing means of measuring and monitoring specific indicators at field level. Ultimately, criteria and indicators will help guide national policies, and may lead to adjustment of prescriptions, decrees and national legislation governing forest management practices in the country.
Comprehensive efforts to compile data on the status and trends in sustainable forest management at the national level are presently under way within the Helsinki and the Montreal Processes. Responses by 31 out of the 39 participating countries approached in an inquiry carried out within the framework of the Helsinki Process showed that there were serious difficulties at national level in implementing and reporting on 6 of the 27 indicators which had previously been agreed upon at regional level.
A survey carried out by the US Forest Service involving 80 individuals in the technical and scientific community, academics, representatives of the forest industry and environmental NGOs, reported that, out of the 67 national level indicators for sustainable forest management agreed upon in the Montreal Process, the means existed in the USA to measure only nine. For another 20-25 indicators, data were reportedly not currently available, but could be generated if sufficient resources were put to the purpose.
The above preliminary results indicated that a lack of knowledge and resources is likely to slow down the implementation of criteria and indicators which have been agreed upon in principle by countries concerned. Unless adequately addressed, related problems may lead to the loss of enthusiasm, commitment and political credibility.
Forest management unit level
Internationally-coordinated efforts in the testing of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level are under way in the form of a project known as 'Testing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Forests'. Coordinated by CIFOR, in collaboration with several governmental and nongovernmental organizations in tropical and temperate countries, the project aims to identify criteria and indicators which can be considered objective, cost-effective and relevant in the assessment of the sustainability of prevailing forest management practices. The project includes field trials in a number of countries. In carrying out this work, members of an interdisciplinary team of experts, who are knowledgeable about national-level activities, consult regularly with relevant interest groups to discuss the results of testing at forest management unit level. The systematic interchange of ideas and regular flow of information from national level 'down' to forest management unit level and vice versa have provided opportunities to link the two levels. Work is continuing in collaboration with a number of developing and developed countries, aimed at rendering the conceptual framework of criteria and indicators consistent and operational.
Other examples of field implementation at the forest management unit level which have provided useful feedback to national-level activities, include:
· pilot projects in Finland and Canada, which examine the applicability of national criteria and indicators at sub-national level (provincial and forest management unit levels) and test the measurement and assessment of specified indicators in the field;· 'Demonstration and Model Forests', established under the overall guidance of Canada, in China, Gabon, Mexico, Russia, Viet Nam and in various provinces of Canada itself, in which information on general strategies and methods of sustainable forest management are translated into action at the operational scale;
· sustainable forest management demonstration areas established in producer countries of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Several projects have been started for testing strategies and methodologies for sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level. In relation with such testing, ITTO, in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), has developed the 'Forest Resources Accounting System' to standardize monitoring of forest condition and management and to facilitate comparable reporting. The system is presently being tested in Cameroon, Ecuador and Indonesia. These activities help support the efforts to achieve the ITTO Year 2000 Objective (see 'The International Tropical Timber Agreement' on page 105 for more discussion of the Year 2000 Objective).
Considerable information gaps have been identified in these efforts to test criteria and indicators, highlighting the need for further research to facilitate implementation. As a result, a Scientific Advisory Group and a Technical Advisory Committee have been established within the framework of the Helsinki and the Montreal Processes respectively, to help to ensure soundness and scientific validity of approach, and to identify research priorities. An International Project Advisory Panel also operates in support of the forest management unit field testing activities of CIFOR.
Criteria and indicators and forest product certification
Countries with significant levels of forest product exports are likely to be those more concerned about measuring, monitoring and documenting sustainable forest management practices at the management unit level, with a view to facilitating future forest product certification. However, as certification must also take into account processing and marketing of the product, sound forest management practices alone are not enough for certification. In addition, there remains considerable difference of opinion as to the linkages between forest product certification and sustainable forest management. Some view certification as a process which can promote sustainable forest management by rewarding 'best practice' through market-driven incentives, while others doubt that certification will have a significant economic impact (see 'Trade in certified forest products' on pages 68-71 for more about certification).
International coverage of initiatives
The Helsinki Process has concentrated on the geographic region of Europe, thus covering boreal, temperate and Mediterranean-type forests. Other initiatives have been based on ecological regions, or a combination of geographic and ecological regions, for example: the humid tropical forest in the case of the ITTO Guidelines and Criteria, which cover forests of ITTO producer countries in all tropical regions; the temperate and boreal zone forests outside of Europe in the case of the Montreal Process; humid tropical, tidal and riverine forests in the Amazon Basin in the Tarapoto Proposal; and arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid zone forests and woodlands in sub-Saharan Africa in the proposals of the recent UNEP/FAO Dry-Zone Africa initiative.
From a biological and silvicultural point of view, an eco-regional approach will facilitate technical and scientific dialogue and the definition of proposed strategies for action. On the other hand, there is a need to seek governmental endorsement of the recommendations made at expert meetings to ensure their political acceptance and, thus to secure national commitment to implementation. The convening of sub-regional, regional and international policy-level fora is needed for this purpose.
The stepwise approach used in many of the ongoing initiatives in the development of criteria and indicators, consisting of early dialogue and subsequent, regular reviews and refinement at technical and scientific level, complemented by policy-level discussions and endorsement of principles, has proven useful and constructive. Recent initiatives have followed this 'model' using established eco-regional and regional/sub-regional political groupings. These include the FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting for the Near East (October 1996) and the Central American initiative (January 1997).
International organizations involved to date, in collaboration with regional organizations, NGOs and others, will continue to promote the exchange of information, research results, data and experience between and among ongoing and forthcoming international initiatives on criteria and indicators, and will strive to involve countries and ecological regions which have not been part of such initiatives to date.
Forest resources assessment and criteria and indicators
FAO and the Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE), in collaboration with various national institutes and a range of international organizations, are presently preparing for the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (see 'Recent trends and current status of forest resources' in Part 1). The main thrust of past Forest Resource Assessment studies (FRA 1980 and 1990) has been to provide information on forest area, although they have also addressed to some extent the role of forests in supplying environmental services and non-wood forest products. These ancillary aspects will be further emphasized in FRA
2000. A planning meeting for FRA 2000 held in June 1996 in Kotka, Finland reviewed the possibilities and implications of incorporating national level indicators for sustainable forest management into future global forest resources assessments. The expert working group considered that 15 of the 80 national-level indicators identified in the main ongoing international initiatives were relevant at global level, and recommended that they should, tentatively, be included in FRA 2000. The group further recommended that an attempt be made by FRA 2000 to assess the feasibility of including an additional 15 indicators in future global assessments.
Improved information flow
Those involved in the various forestry processes and initiatives concerned with criteria and indicators have been in frequent contact. This continuing dialogue between them has been of great importance, allowing countries and regions to share experiences and ensure that recommended actions are compatible. The comparability of results to date demonstrates the benefits which can be derived from having an open dialogue.
While communication within the forestry sector has been satisfactory, the flow of information to other economic sectors, at both national and international levels, has not been as successful. It is of utmost importance that efforts concerned with the development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management are linked with related efforts in other sectors. Appropriate linkages should be forged, or strengthened, with work carried out within the framework of existing, global conventions such as those related to combating desertification, to climate change and to the conservation of biological diversity, as well as follow-up to UNCED recommendations on sustainable mountain development (Chapter 13 of Agenda 21) (see 'The international dialogue and initiatives with relevance to forests' starting on page 101 for more about these international efforts). Such links will help ensure that action taken in each sector is fully understood by, and compatible with, that of other sectors, and that it contributes to common, defined national development goals.
The intensified discussion on sustainable forest management, coupled with greatly increased exchange of information, experience and know-how between countries and organizations, has heightened global awareness of the issues at stake. Today it is commonly acknowledged that all kinds of forests can, in principle, be sustainably managed to produce a range of protective, productive, environmental and social benefits in perpetuity. Such recognition of the renewability and possible multiple use of the resource will help underpin and strengthen national policies and should facilitate the spread of sustainable forest management practices worldwide.
Discussion on mutually-agreeable concepts and the identification of quantifiable indicators for sustainable forest management have facilitated dialogue between various interest groups, whose views had previously been seen as competitive, contradictory, or even incompatible.
It is essential that vigorous dialogue continues between international initiatives. Regular dissemination of information in this regard is an international responsibility, and should be one of the basic components of a globally-harmonized programme on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.
