| United Nations | E/CN.17/IPF/1996/21 |
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL
8 August 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Commission on Sustainable Development
Ad-Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
Third Session
9-20 September 1996
SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT
CATEGORY III: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, FOREST ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT.
Programme Element 2: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management
SUMMARY
Initial discussions at IPF II on Programme Element III.2 were based on
a comprehensive overview of: work to-date carried out on the
development of national level criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management; an examination of geographic and ecological
coverage of various international initiatives; and comparability
between criteria and indicators developed by them. The present
document reviews the current status of international work in this
field, and assesses recent developments with special reference to
issues raised by the Panel at its second meeting. The report notes the
greatly increased awareness of the possibilities offered by criteria
and indicators and challenges posed by the sustainable management of
all types of forests. It urges the international community and
individual countries to use this opportunity to further strengthen
their support to national policies and institutions and, through early
implementation, involving all concerned parties, help demonstrate the
validity of concepts developed. The report stresses the need to
maintain a flexible approach, to accommodate divergent socio-economic
and environmental conditions and capacities, to facilitate
incorporation of new findings and to accommodate emerging needs. It
points to areas in which action should be intensified, and highlights
some issues which are in need of further clarification. It offers some
suggestions for action at national and international levels for the
consideration of the Panel.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
II. OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS DURING IPF II
III. CURRENT STATUS RELATED TO ISSUES RAISED DURING IPF II
- Concepts
- Harmonization of Terminology
- Levels of Implementation
- International Coverage of Initiatives
- Comparability of Criteria and Indicators
- Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Forest Management
- Criteria and Indicators, Certification of Sustainable Forest
Management, and Labelling of Forest Products
- Exchange of Experience and Know-how, Dissemination of
Information
IV. ASSESSMENT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: REASONS FOR OPTIMISM
- Harmonization of Concepts and Terminology
- International Coverage of Initiatives
- Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Forest Management
- Criteria and Indicators and Forest Product Certification
- Exchange of Experience and Know-how: Dissemination of
Information
V. FUTURE CHALLENGES
- Harmonization of Concepts and Terminology
- Comparability of Criteria and Indicators
- Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Forest Management
- Information Needs, Institutional Capacity, Resources
- Exchange of Experience, Know-how and Dissemination of
Information
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The need to reconcile the productive functions with the protective,
environmental, economic and social roles fulfilled by all types of
forests, was stressed forcefully in Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 of UNCED
("Combating Deforestation") and in the "Forest Principles" 1/. In
accordance with the calls for action made at UNCED, 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".
2. The third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD) requested the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF),
established within its framework, to promote action which would help,
"encourage national implementation of criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management and study the feasibility of further
developing internationally agreed upon criteria and indicators against
which progress towards sustainable management of all types of forests
could be measured, taking into account the specific regional and sub-
regional conditions of forests and the diversity of economic, social
and cultural environments". The CSD, further, requested that the IPF
review and support appropriate action aimed at, "facilitation of the
engagement of regions and countries not yet involved in developing
criteria an indicators of sustainable forest management; sharing of
experiences in testing and implementing them; and examining the need
to promote comparability and the appropriateness of convergence among
international initiatives in this regard".
3. In accordance with decisions taken at its first meeting in New York
in September 1995, the IPF undertook preliminary discussion of the
issue of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management at
its second meeting, held in Geneva in March 1996 2/.
4. The Secretary-General's Report covering this item of the agenda,
"Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management", 3/
presented a comprehensive review of work which had been carried out in
the development of national level criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management, examined the geographic and ecological
coverage of on-going international initiatives and efforts to further
extend such coverage, and discussed comparability between the national
level criteria developed to date as well as the prospects of finding
commonly applicable indicators to characterize these criteria, should
this be considered desirable.
5. At its second meeting, the IPF requested the Secretariat, in
collaboration with relevant international institutions, to further
develop and expand on some of the issues raised in the report and
during the discussions. It also requested that at its forthcoming
sessions information to be presented be regularly up-dated, and that
possible new developments be drawn to its attention.
6. The report takes into consideration paragraphs 12 and 15 of the
Statement on Biological Diversity and Forests from the Convention on
Biological Diversity to the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
(UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19).
7. The present document, has been prepared by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as the lead agency for
programme element III.2, in consultation with the secretariat of the
Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests in the Division for
Sustainable Development of the Department for Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development of the United nations Secretariat. In
addition comments and contributions were received from the secretariat
of the Inter-Governmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management (Finland), from the Center for
International Forest Research (CIFOR), UNEP, ECE and FAO/ECE. It has
been prepared for the third meeting of the IPF, and aims to respond to
the requests of the Panel as stated above. The report also takes note
of the Working List of Indicators of Sustainable Development under
preparation in relation to Agenda 21 Chapter 8 (Integrating
environment and development in decision making) and Chapter 40
(Information for Decision-Making), as well as the structuring of these
into driving force, state and response indicators.
8. It should be noted that the outcome of the Inter-Governmental
Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
(ISCI), organized in Helsinki in August 1996 by the Finnish Government
in collaboration with FAO and other international organizations, in
support of the work of the IPF, was not yet available at the time of
preparation of this report. However, available background documents
for ISCI were considered in the report. The Panel may, therefore, wish
to consider the recommendations of this inter-sessional seminar as a
complement to the present report.
II. OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS DURING IPF II
9. In the initial discussions on criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management in March 1996, based on the Secretary-
General's report on item III/2, countries expressed a range of views
on the subject. A summarized review of these discussions is given
below.
The Panel expressed unanimous support for:
- examining the possibilities for developing a global consensus on
concepts, terms and definitions related to sustainable forest
management;
- promoting ways to expand and intensify activities in the
identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management, especially in the regions not yet involved in on-going
initiatives, including special ways and means to assist developing
countries in which forests and woodlands were essential in meeting
basic subsistence needs of rural populations and forest-dwelling
peoples;
- clarification of links between national-level and forest management
unit level activities;
- promotion of ways and means to maximize the exchange of information,
experiences and know-how at global level, in all issues related to
criteria and indicators.
The Panel expressed reservations regarding:
- linking ecological zones in different geographic regions of the
world, as a first step towards achieving internationally compatible
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management;
- developing methodologies to quantify indicators currently recorded
as qualitative and descriptive;
- strengthening mechanisms aimed at promoting cross-sectoral linkages.
10. In addition, a number of points were discussed and debated,
including: the overall concept of criteria and indicators in achieving
scientifically sound, technically valid and economically viable
sustainable forest management, adapted to the diverse conditions and
needs of individual countries; the scope of criteria, related to
social, economic, cultural, religious and environmental values and
benefits; the need to fully involve all concerned parties in the
planning and implementation of sustainable forest management; the need
to maintain a broad spectrum of indicators to reflect national
realities; the need for flexibility to allow for the incorporation of
new and emerging requirements of societies and the application of new
research findings into the strategies developed; the development of
criteria and indicators at regional, national, and forest management
unit levels, links and relationships between these levels,
responsibilities in corresponding action and implementation; the
possibilities and/or desirability to pursue convergence or
harmonization at international level; field testing at national and
forest management unit levels; links with ITTO's "Objective Year
2000"; relationship between work on criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management on the one hand, and forest product
certification on the other; the need to ensure that development and
implementation of work in the field of criteria and indicators not be
used in support of unilateral trade barriers for forest products, nor
to restrict the status of a country in relation to Official
Development Assistance; and the need to pay due attention to those
sections of the "Forest Principles", in which institutional, technical
and financial assistance to developing countries was addressed.
III. CURRENT STATUS RELATED TO ISSUES RAISED DURING IPF II
Concepts
11. In the on-going international dialogue on forests, it is generally
recognized that criteria define the essential elements of sustainable
forest management against which the sustainability of forests can be
assessed. Each criterion relates to a key element of sustainability in
forestry and is characterised by one or more related qualitative,
quantitative or descriptive indicators. Through the periodic
assessment of these indicators, the overall effects of forest
management interventions, or consequences of non-intervention, or
consequences of stresses associated with activities external to
forestry (e.g. air-borne pollutants, climate change), can be
objectively evaluated, and action adjusted to better meet stated,
overall national or sub-national aims and objectives. Overall
sustainability requires that trends related to all agreed-upon
indicators move in the same (desirable) direction, over time.
12. Indicators must be identified in context of national realities.
Not all indicators are quantifiable, and both quantitative and
qualitative indicators, supplemented at times by descriptive
indicators, will be needed to adequately reflect national realities
and to facilitate periodic assessments and reporting and, ultimately,
to policy action which will lead to sustainable forest management
practices.
13. Systematic and continued involvement of all concerned parties in
all stages of the work, including government institutions, forest
owners, the private sector, local and indigenous communities,
indigenous and non-indigenous forest dwellers and relevant national
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), will be necessary to help
ensure overall soundness of approach, timely implementation and
sustainability of efforts over time.
Harmonization of Terminology
14. Criteria specify the essential components of sustainable forest
management, and they thus collectively provide an implicit, generally
accepted definition for the current concept of sustainable forest
management. Furthermore, most of the on-going, international
initiatives on criteria and indicators have elaborated lists of
definitions related to key terms used by them. Although not entirely
identical, these working definitions seem to be largely compatible.
Almost all recent national and international fora concerned with
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management have
stressed the need to further intensify efforts to reach global
consensus on key concepts and terms used and to link this terminology
to that used in other, related fields of forestry, for example
inventory, assessment and valuation.
Levels of Implementation
15. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management have
been identified, over the past years, at regional, national, and sub-
national (i.e. the forest management unit) levels. Although it is
generally recognized that these levels are conceptually linked, and
that there is a need for countries to ensure consistency in approach
at the national and sub-national level, there are still some
unresolved issues concerning the relationships, especially when
addressing links between implementation of criteria and indicators at
the national and at the forest management unit levels.
16. It is widely acknowledged that each specific forest, in isolation,
cannot meet all national level criteria of sustainability. However, it
is important that the forest management objectives in individual
forests or forest management units are complementary, and that each of
them contributes collectively and in a coordinated manner, towards
overall national goals of sustainability. In other words, it is
acceptable, and indeed necessary, to prioritize and assign a hierarchy
of priority values among agreed-upon criteria and among indicators
related to each criterion in any one forest, thus reflecting local
circumstances, needs and priorities at any given time. Such
prioritization must be determined within the framework of overall,
national plans, with due consideration to possible trade-offs through
compensatory action in other forests or forest areas.
International Coverage of Initiatives
17. Significant progress has been made since UNCED in the
conceptualization of ideas and in the identification of criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management in many parts of the
world. At the request of countries concerned, international action is
also underway to increasingly involve those countries and regions
which to date have been largely outside the international initiatives
on criteria and indicators.
18. An overview of the geographic coverage of on-going and planned 4/
international initiatives on national level criteria and indicators
for sustainable forest management is given in Table 1.
Table 1. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ECOLOGICAL REGION AND No. Forest Area 6/
INITIATIVE 5/ Countries '000 ha
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperate & Boreal Forests :
- Helsinki Process 38 7/ 904 577
- Montreal Process 12 1 500 000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropical Forests:
- ITTO Producer Countries 25 1 305 046
- Tarapoto Proposal 8/ 8 540 000 9/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry-Zone Forests:
- Sub-Saharan Dry-Zone Africa 27 278 021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiatives Planned:
- North Africa and the Near
East 10/ 18 10 573
- CCAD 11/ 9 21 755
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Present and proposed international initiatives have been focused
on either geographic regions, as in the case of e.g. the Helsinki
Process and the planned FAO/UNEP Near East initiative; on broad,
ecological regions, as in the case of the Montreal Process (temperate
and boreal zones), the UNEP/FAO Dry-Zone Africa initiative and the
work of the ITTO (humid tropics); or on a combination of geographic
and ecological regions, frequently carried out under the overall,
political and policy level umbrella of regional or sub-regional
groupings, as in the case of the Tarapoto proposals (the Amazon
Cooperation Treaty countries) and the planned CCAD/FAO/UNEP Central
America initiative.
20. While an eco-regional approach can facilitate scientific
understanding, it is widely recognized that there is a need to ensure
early endorsement of recommended action by inter-governmental fora or
major, political groupings, as political and policy-level acceptance
is a precondition for lasting national commitment and continued
country level implementation. In addition to international levels,
relevant policy fora often operate at regional or sub-regional levels.
Accordingly the continued need to pursue work at the level of
geographic regions was strongly advocated by IPF II.
Comparability of Criteria and Indicators
21. When reviewing the results of on-going initiatives, it can be
noted that there is good correspondence between sustainability
criteria. A summary of national level criteria for sustainable forest
management, formulated under five international initiatives, is
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. SUMMARIZED OVERVIEW:
CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITERIA 12/ HELS MONT ITTO TARA DryZ
13/ Africa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVELS
- Forest Management Unit Level No No yes yes no
- National Level yes yes yes yes yes
- Global Level no no no yes no
THEMATIC CATEGORIES
Forest Resources:
- Extent of Forest Resources yes - 14/ yes - 16/ yes
- Global Carbon Cycles yes yes no no - 17/
- Forest Ecosystem Health and
Vitality yes yes no - yes
- Biological Diversity in
Forest Ecosystems yes yes - 15/ yes yes
Forest Functions:
- Productive Functions of Forests yes yes yes yes yes
- Protective and Environmental
Functions of Forests yes yes yes yes yes
Development & Social Needs
- Socio-Economic Functions and
Conditions yes yes yes yes yes
Institutional Framework:
- Policy & Legal Framework,
Capacity to Implement
Sustainable Forest Management yes 18/ yes yes yes yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. An examination of Table 2 shows that various countries engaged in
different initiatives already agree upon and recognize common criteria,
which are globally considered to be essential elements of sustainable forest
management. It has also been argued by many that it might be feasible to
formulate an internationally accepted "core set" of a limited number of
common indicators.
23. However, at present, there is only a partial similarity between
indicators identified to characterize national level criteria among on-going
initiatives. Also, there are marked differences in assigning importance to
various indicators between countries, and among countries working under the
umbrella of any one of the international initiatives. This reflects varying
economic, environmental, social, cultural and religious values and needs,
which operate within legal and policy frameworks usually specific to
individual countries. There is general consensus that a broad spectrum of
indicators should be maintained to accommodate such acknowledged
differences.
24. The general, global consensus on criteria on the one hand, and the
divergence in sets of indicators evidenced in on-going work on the other, is
understandable. Recognition of the differences between the role of criteria
and indicators is important in actual implementation of strategies
developed. This consideration is also of particular importance when
contemplating possible harmonization or convergence.
25. In this regard it has been noted that possible convergence need not
necessarily affect all indicators in the same way: an international "core
set" would most likely focus on some of the quantitative indicators related
to biological and physical measures, which are more easily comparable
between countries than are social indicators 19/.
26. The advantages of consensus are considered to lie in i.a. the
possibility of incorporating common indicators into mechanisms such as the
global forest resources assessment, thus facilitating both country-based
reporting on progress towards stated, common aims, and helping to determine
overall, international trends. A number of quantitative parameters included
in FAO's periodic forest resources assessment and possible future national
reports required under the Convention on Biological Diversity, Framework
Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Combatting Desertification as
well as the information collected for CITES, may potentially constitute such
a core set.
27. According to some experts striving for "universality" of indicators at
international or regional level, at the expense of "specificity" applicable
to a given country, or to a group of like-minded countries with similar
conditions, could potentially dilute progress made to date. Specificity of
indicators, however, will not diminish the need to ensure that there is
complete clarity about the nature of each indicator, the exact way in which
it is measured, the determination of confidence limits, and perceived
significance of trends over time.
28. While any process aimed at promotion of overall convergence of criteria
and indicators or international harmonization, if it were to be pursued,
will have to follow a careful, step by step approach, there is general
agreement on the need to vigorously promote transparency and international
dialogue aimed at promoting comparability and mutual recognition of the
value of existing sets of indicators developed for given conditions.
29. Ensuring comparability between on-going initiatives, exchanging valuable
learning experiences and conceptually linking new and emerging initiatives
to already operational ones, will help avoid the proliferation of
potentially incompatible approaches.
Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
30. The implementation of forest sector strategies guided by internationally
accepted framework for criteria and indicators, implies re-confirmation by
countries of the relevance of defined criteria to the national situation and
their adoption, in principle, by all concerned parties. It further implies
that individual countries review and test the practical possibilities to
measure and periodically assess specific indicators at the field level and
that they assess their relevance to prevailing environmental, economic,
social and institutional realities of the country concerned. Ultimately,
criteria and indicators adopted at the national level will help guide
national policies, and may lead to adjustment of prescriptions, regulations
and national legislation governing forest management practices in the
country.
31. While conceptual thinking is well advanced, work is in its early stages
in regard to actual, national and forest management unit level
implementation.
Criteria and Indicators, Certification of Sustainable Forest Management, and
Labelling of Forest Products
32. There is general acceptance that criteria and indicators specified at
national level provide the necessary framework to guide the identification
of criteria and indicators applicable at the forest management unit level,
and that work at this latter level is the responsibility of individual
countries. Performance assessments carried out at the forest management unit
level, in accordance with internationally accepted definitions of
sustainable forest management, can contribute directly to sustainable forest
management practices. The labelling of forest products, including chain of
custody controls, is more related to the trade and marketing aspects of what
is broadly termed certification, and would facilitate or catalyze
improvements in sustainable forest management practices as a direct response
to the "green" market signals and the associated competitive advantage.
33. Certification of products from sustainably managed forests, in essence,
means setting performance standards for a given forest area. The specific
links between initiatives aimed at improved forest management on the one
hand, and forest management certification as part of the labelling of forest
products on the other, are still unclear, and differences in opinion remain
largely unresolved in international debate. The International Conference on
Certification and Labelling held 26-31 May in Brisbane, Australia, concluded
that certification and labelling are potentially useful tools, among many
others, to promote sustainable forest management. The efficacy of these and
other tools therefore needs further analysis and evaluation.
34. While one view sees certification as a process which can promote
sustainable forest management by rewarding "best practice" through market-
driven incentives, another view holds that certification schemes can only be
considered by countries after the successful and lasting implementation of
sustainable forest management, and that such schemes should thus be seen as
a consequence, rather than a tool towards, development of sustainable forest
management. Issues on forest management certification are more substantially
discussed under Programme Element IV.
Exchange of Experience and Know-how, Dissemination of Information
35. There is general recognition of the continued need to share information
and international experiences between various on-going initiatives, and to
duly inform those countries and regions which have only recently joined the
international debate on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management. Largely compatible results to date can be seen as a clear
indication of the benefits derived from this close and open dialogue, which
has also served to increase participation and confidence among groups
traditionally outside the forest sector.
IV. ASSESSMENT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: REASONS FOR OPTIMISM
Harmonization of Concepts and Terminology
36. Lack of internationally agreed definitions could potentially lead to
contradictory viewpoints being encapsulated in the same conceptual
framework. Efforts are underway to formulate common terminology. These
efforts should help underpin global consensus on key concepts and terms used
in the international deliberations on criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management and help provide a common basis for
discussion, thus fostering a wider understanding of issues, both within and
outside the forest sector.
37. In accordance with international recommendations, an attempt has been
made in such work to make maximum use of already existing, globally accepted
terms, such as the definitions of the Global Forest Resources Assessment
programme, coordinated by FAO 20/.
38. In this regard, FAO is presently collaborating with the International
Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), to review forestry
concepts and terms in use in a range of language groups, in some 25
countries, covering all regions of the world. The on-going, first phase of
the study is based on approximately 20 core terms and related concepts,
originally defined in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 1990 (FAO
Forestry Paper 124, FAO 1995; Annex 2.3) 21/.
39. A list of proposed concepts and terms related to criteria and
indicators, has been elaborated in the process leading up to the Inter-
Governmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management (ISCI). This compilation built upon, and complemented, earlier
attempts by the various international initiatives and by FAO to define and
help compile lists of definitions used by each of these initiatives.
40. Work presently underway for the preparation of the State of the World's
Forests, to be published by FAO in the first half of 1997; and work within
the framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, has also
dedicated considerable time and resources to harmonizing basic terminology
on a global scale (see Secretary-General's report prepared under IPF
Programme Element III.1 (a)).
International Coverage of Initiatives
41. Promotion of action to expand work to those countries and regions not
involved in international initiatives has been recommended in a number of
fora, including the FAO/ITTO Expert Meeting on the Harmonization of Criteria
and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (February 1995), the 12th
Session of FAO's Committee on Forestry (COFO), the Meeting of Ministers
Responsible for Forestry held immediately following COFO in March 1995; and
ultimately, IPF II. FAO, in close collaboration with other concerned
organizations (e.g. ITTO, UNDP, UNEP, IUCN), has been requested to lead this
international initiative.
42. In response to the above recommendations, the issue of criteria and
indicators has been systematically included among the items discussed at the
biannually held Regional Forestry Commission meetings of FAO, which cover
the six regions of the world.
43. Planned Activities:
(i) Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management in the Near East, in Cairo, Egypt from 15 to 17 October 1996, to
be organized by FAO Headquarters and FAO Regional Office for the Near East
(RNE) tentatively in collaboration with UNEP. The meeting will focus on dry
areas in the Near East countries. The conclusions and recommendations of the
Expert Meeting will be conveyed to the 12th Session of the Near East
Forestry Commission (21-24 October 1996), and will complement the
Secretariat Note on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management in the Near East.
(ii) A Workshop and Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management in Central America, to be organized by the
Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) within the
framework of an FAO Technical Cooperation project, tentatively in
collaboration with UNEP, in Costa Rica or Honduras in October or November
1996. Provisional plans have also been made to invite as observers experts
from some Caribbean countries to the meeting.
W‹> The Inter-Governmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management (ISCI), has been referred to in para. 6 of
this report. The Seminar, being held in support of the work programme of the
IPF, focused discussion on three Background Reports: (i) "Achievements in
the Development of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management"; (ii) "Examination of Comparability and International
Compatibility of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management";
and (iii) "Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management, and their Use as Policy Instrument" 22/. A report on the
conclusions and recommendations of the ISCI Seminar will be made available
to IPF III.
45. A Japan/Canada International Workshop on Integrated Application of
Sustainable Forest Management Practices, will be organized in collaboration
with FAO and ITTO from 22 to 25 November 1996 in Kochi, Japan, in support of
the work programme of the IPF. The workshop will review possibilities and
needs related to field level application of sustainable forest management,
in the light of international measures, national policies and practical
experiences of implementation of sustainability concepts to date. Based on
specific case studies, the workshop will propose options and strategies for
action, which will be drawn to the attention of IPF IV, and expected to be
followed by support to pilot level, field implementation in a number of
countries.
Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
46. A comprehensive effort to compile data for describing the state of
national level sustainable forest management is presently underway within
the Helsinki Process. Results from a test enquiry on the 27 quantitative
indicators adopted by the Helsinki Process were reported on at the Third
Expert Level Follow-up Meeting of the Helsinki Conference. Data referring
to the 1980s and the 1990s was provided by 30 of the 36 Signatory States of
the Helsinki Ministerial Conference Resolutions H1 ("Sustainable Management
of Forests in Europe") and H2 ("Conservation of the Biodiversity of European
Forests"), as well as by one country (Albania), which has not signed the
Resolutions. A more complete assessment may be carried out for the Third
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, planned to be
held in Lisbon, Portugal in 1998.
47. In a meeting held in Australia in June 1996, countries collaborating in
the Montreal Process reported on early efforts to gather data pertaining to
the 67 indicators developed within its framework. A report on national
progress will be prepared based on information from collaborating countries
for the Fourth Meeting of the CSD in early 1997. The Secretariat of the
Process plans to present a "First Approximation Report on Implementation",
at the 11th World Forestry Congress in Turkey (October 1997).
48. In recognition of the considerable information gaps identified in the
course of the work and acknowledgement of the need for further research to
facilitate implementation within the framework the Helsinki and the Montreal
Processes, the Scientific Advisory Group and the Technical Advisory
Committee have been established to help 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 the Centre for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR) 23/.
49. Following completion of the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)
1990, FAO and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), are presently
preparing for the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. The main thrust
of the FRA studies to-date has been to provide information on forest areas
and trends. However, the role of forests in supplying environmental
services and non-wood products, was also addressed to some extent in FRA
1980 and FRA 1990. These aspects will be further emphasised in FRA 2000. In
FRA 2000 an attempt will be made to render data from different countries
that are increasingly comparable in terms of completeness, consistency and
quality. Efforts in this regard will be supported by parallel programmes
aimed at country capacity building (see the Secretary-General's report
related to Programme Area III.1 (a)).
50. Activities of the FRA programme will take into account the results of
the European Forest Information and Communication System (EFICS), which was
started by the European Forestry Institute in January 1996. The objectives
of the project, funded by the European Union (EU), are to analyze the
differences in national information systems, and to study the needs and
possibilities to harmonise existing mechanisms of collection of forest
related data in national forest inventories. The project covers the 15
Member States of the European Union, plus Norway and Switzerland.
51. Information on many quantitative indicators is already collected, to
various degrees, through existing international mechanisms, including
agencies outside the traditional forest sector and in relation with Chapters
8 and 40 of Agenda 21. Consequently, data on the share of the forest sector
in the Gross National Product are collected by i.a. the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by FAO; and data on
employment in forestry are assembled by OECD and the International Labour
Organization (ILO). In the European context, data on defoliation of forest
trees are collected by the ECE/EU, within its "International Cooperative
Programme on the Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on
Forests" (IPC-Forests); data collection on soil conditions has also been
started recently by ECE/EU. Electronically processed information on forest
fires in Europe has over the past decade been collected and disseminated by
ECE/FAO; FAO has recently complemented the ECE/FAO European forest fire
statistics by preliminary global data, and is planning to further develop
this area in the future, resources permitting. Efforts underway to harmonize
reporting requirements under some conventions relevant to forests (e.g.
biological diversity, climate change and desertification) should be of value
in future forest assessments.
52. Criteria and indicators may be applied at both the national and the
forest management unit level. While there are certain indicators, such as
those related to the balance between different uses of the forest, or to
national policies, which are only applicable at national level, the
quantification of many national indicators is, in fact, derived from data
collected at forest management unit level. Action at national level must,
therefore, necessarily forge links with activities at forest management unit
level.
53. In connection with work focused on testing of criteria and indicators at
forest management unit level, CIFOR has developed a method in which members
of an inter-disciplinary team of experts, knowledgeable in national level
activities, regularly consults with relevant interested groups in relation
to testing in particular forest management units. This has allowed
systematic exchange of ideas, combining top-down and bottom-up approaches,
and a regular information flow from national level "down" to forest
management unit level and vice versa, thus providing opportunities to link
the two levels within a consistent, conceptual framework.
54. Other examples of field implementation which has provided useful
feedback to national level activities include i.a.:
(i) pilot projects, e.g. in Finland, Australia and Canada, which examine the
applicability of national criteria and indicators at sub-national level
(provincial, forest management unit levels); and test the practical
possibilities to measure and assess specified indicators in the field;
(ii) "Demonstration and Model Forests", established under the overall
guidance of Canada, in i.a. China, Gabon, Mexico, Russia, Vietnam and in
various provinces of Canada itself, in which information on general
strategies and methods in sustainable forest management are translated into
action at the operational scale;
(iii) Sustainable forest management demonstration areas established in ITTO
Producer Countries. Several projects have been started for testing of
strategies and methodologies for sustainable forest management at the forest
management unit level. In relation with such testing the 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 thus to facilitate
comparable reporting. The system is presently being tested in Cameroon,
Ecuador and Indonesia;
55. The International Tropical Timber Council Decision XX/18 of 23 May 1996,
related to the ITTO Mid-Term Review of Progress Towards the Achievements of
the Year 2000 Objective, called for producer and consumer countries and
international organizations, to promote priority action to achieve the aims
specified in relation to field level implementation of sustainable forest
management. The pilot efforts listed above, in addition to providing feed-
back and information to national level activities in pursuance of
sustainable forest management, will help support action aimed at achieving
the ITTO Objective, through providing information on practical experience
and results.
Criteria and Indicators and Forest Product Certification
56. Many of the field testing activities mentioned above include, among
their aims, specific mention of the examination of possibilities to link
criteria and indicators with certification of products from sustainably
managed forests.
57. Numerous fora have been established over recent years to discuss and
develop mechanisms and promote action aimed at underpinning forest product
certification, with links to the promotion of sustainable forest
management 24/. National level activities to help promote future
certification are also underway in a number of countries 25/.
58. A large number of meetings and conferences have, furthermore, been held
on sustainable forest management with a focus on certification of products
from sustainably managed forests, both at national and
regional/international levels 26/.
Exchange of Experience and Know-how: Dissemination of Information
59. The past few years have evidenced an expanding and rapidly growing
debate on sustainable forest management, spanning from policy makers,
scientists and technicians to the general public. This has been coupled by
greatly increased exchange of information, experiences and know-how both
between countries and among the various international initiatives underway.
As a consequence, there is heightened global awareness of issues at stake,
and decision makers and the general public today commonly acknowledge 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 a basic recognition of the renewability and possibility of
multiple use of the resource will help promote and strengthen supporting,
national policies, and should facilitate introduction and large-scale
implementation of sustainable forest management practices.
60. Discussion on mutually agreeable concepts and the identification of
quantifiable indicators for sustainable forest management has, furthermore,
facilitated dialogue between various groups of interested parties, whose
interests have earlier been seen as largely contradictory, competitive, or
even incompatible.
V. FUTURE CHALLENGES
Harmonization of Concepts and Terminology
61. The lack of internationally agreed concepts and terms could seriously
hamper future progress especially in the implementation phases of the work.
62. In line with experiences outlined in preceding sections, a balance needs
to be maintained between the economic, environmental, social and cultural
dimensions of forest management to ensure sustainability of efforts.
Excessively high expectations with regard to any one of the basic criteria
is likely to result in action which may not be compatible with specified,
overall national development goals (e.g. as expressed in the working list of
indicators of sustainable development for decision making related to Agenda
21 Chapters 8 and 40). To avoid any one interest group dominating the debate
and subsequent action, it is of utmost importance that all those concerned
continue to openly discuss priorities and aspirations, and that genuine
efforts be made to reach consensus.
Comparability of Criteria and Indicators
63. As stressed above, criteria and indicators are closely related to
national conditions, to the significance and functions of forests in
countries concerned, and to the general policy framework applied by
countries in forestry and related fields. Thus, while the basic ingredients
will be largely the same, the relative importance and priority assigned to
individual criteria and indicators may vary between countries. The
implications of the need to consider specific, national characteristics in
the implementation of internationally agreed criteria and indicators are
still to be clarified, especially as regards coordinated international
action, comparability between countries and potential convergence, and
possibilities to continue to maintain trust and mutual acceptance between
nations, among international initiatives, and between different interest
groups.
Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management
64. There is a well-recognized need for increased testing and implementation
of national level indicators, and for regular dialogue among participating
countries and between these and the secretariats of corresponding
initiatives. Periodic exchange of experiences on successful implementation,
difficulties in application and possible ambiguities in interpretation of
concepts and methodologies, is essential for attaining a gradual improvement
of forest management practices and for maintaining interest and commitment
of collaborating countries. The role of the international secretariats in
facilitating this process will be crucial, and continuity of their
functions, or other, alternative arrangements, should be secured.
65. Increased, overall flexibility in implementation strategies will need to
be built to incorporate changes based on experience and new research
findings, and in response to evolving social, economic, environmental and
institutional needs in countries. Accordingly, to be successful in the long
term, implementation of criteria and indicators must be seen as a
continuing, dynamic evolving process, supported by adequate allocation of
resources and political commitment over time. Practical experience in this
regard is presently lacking.
66. Twenty-seven national level indicators have been specified by the ITTO
and by the Helsinki Process; 67 have been specified by the Montreal Process;
and 47 have been proposed by the Tarapoto and the Dry Zone Africa
initiatives. Experience to date has shown that these indicators represent an
"ideal", rather than an absolute, final set. Flexibility, to allow for
selectivity, is needed in the application and use of these internationally
agreed-upon criteria and indicators at national level, even among countries
operating under the framework of the same, international initiative.
67. There is an urgent need to critically evaluate the relevance and
possibilities for regular assessment in individual countries of indicators
specified at international level. Indicators used by any given country need
to be practical and convincing, and their application must be seen as both
pertinent and cost-effective in the eyes of national decision makers,
technical and scientific experts as well as the general public. Furthermore,
indicators must directly or indirectly help respond to questions which are
asked by potential users. If trends in a given indicator does not reveal any
real significance in assessing the sustainability of forest management, then
the indicator can be considered irrelevant, and need not be measured. A
process of country level implementation has recently been started in the
case of the Helsinki and the Montreal Processes which will help respond to
such questions. However, the compromises needed to maintain consistency
between countries are still to be clarified.
68. In this regard, a survey carried out by the U.S. Forest Service,
involving 80 individuals in the technical and scientific community,
including also academics, representatives of the forest industry and
environmental NGOs, reportedly found that out of the 67 national level
indicators for sustainable forest management agreed upon in the Montreal
Process in which USA participates, individuals included in the survey
considered that ways and means existed in the country to measure only nine.
For another 20-25 indicators, data were reportedly not available at present,
but could be generated if sufficient resources were allocated. A major
bottleneck for implementation, related to lack of know-how and resources,
was thus preliminarily flagged. Unless adequately addressed, such lack of
information and appropriate methodologies is likely to seriously impair
implementation, and lead to a loss of momentum and commitment.
69. Over the past two years, results from the test enquiry made within the
framework of the Helsinki Process showed that data for indicators of the
criterion related to the forest resource were available in most countries.
Such information, however, was based on differing definitions,
classifications and time intervals, and therefore, status and trends were
not directly comparable.
70. Further, according to this review, data on non-wood products were
available only for those products which were, at the time, considered of
particular value to society in a particular country; these products differed
between countries, and were apt to rapid change, making comparisons between
countries difficult to interpret. Information related to indicators on
maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality, was scant 27/; and
information was largely lacking, or not recorded by countries, on biological
diversity indicators and on indicators related to social aspects. In
general, it was noted that time series of observations were not available in
most countries, for the majority of the Helsinki Process indicators, and
that determination of past trends was therefore frequently not possible.
71. The survey also clearly demonstrated that for international comparisons,
further efforts are needed in the definition of terms and in the
harmonization of classifications related to forest-based information. Ample
and recurring information gaps pointed to the need to increase research
especially into environmental, social and policy issues.
72. The above findings are in line with the CIFOR tests at the forest
management unit level, which also revealed that considerable work is still
needed to make the conceptual framework of criteria and indicators
consistent and operational.
73. With regard to the incorporation of indicators for sustainable forest
management into national and international forest inventories, the
FAO/Finland "Kotka III" Expert Consultation on the Global Forest Resources
Assessment 2000, was held in Finland in June 1996, in cooperation with UN-
ECE and UNEP, with the support of Finland. Two studies which reviewed the
implications and possible modalities to incorporate national indicators for
sustainable forest management into future global forest resources
assessments, commissioned by FAO, were discussed. The more conclusive of
the two, which quantified results and findings, included consideration of
the possibilities and feasibility of systematic, worldwide measurement by
countries of eighty internationally identified indicators reviewed; and the
possibility and potential usefulness of aggregating information on these at
global level. The study concluded that only 16 out of the 80 national level
indicators reviewed could, in principle, be considered for inclusion in
future global forest resources assessments 28/. Likewise, a Working Group
at Kotka III ("FRA 2000 - Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest
Management") in considering the same 80 indicators recommended that 11
should be included in FRA 2000 and an attempt should be made by FRA 2000 to
assess a further 11 additional indicators. Reference is also made to the
report to IPFIII Programme Element III.1a which finds that of the indicators
of the four main criteria and indicator processes, the FRA 2000 will cover 5
for each of the Helsinki and Montreal Processes (out of 27 and 67
respectively), 4-5 of the Dry Zone Africa (out of 47) and possibly 2-3 out
of the Tarapoto Process (out of 47).
Information Needs, Institutional Capacity, Resources
74. The availability of reliable, regularly up-dated and comparable
information related to specified sets of indicators is essential for sound
debate, and a precondition for monitoring the impact of forest management
interventions as well as for evaluation of national and international
trends. Additional efforts will be needed in the future to ensure that such
information is continually generated and regularly up-dated, and that it is
scientifically sound, technically valid, and a cost-effective way to respond
to specific questions and needs.
75. It is clear that the current institutional capacity to implement
criteria and indicators, notably but not only in developing countries, is
grossly inadequate. In many countries even basic data related to the area
and type of forests is largely lacking. A concerted effort is required at
the national as well as the international level to build the capacity needed
to confront future information needs, and to channel resources towards
meeting specified aims.
Exchange of Experience, Know-how and Dissemination of Information
76. Since criteria and indicators cover a multiplicity of benefits from
forests and forestry, future activities will require increased levels of
coordination between forest and other related information systems and fields
of activity, such as economy and employment, marketing and trade, and
biological diversity conservation.
77. Progress in defining sustainability indicators in forestry has, in many
respects, been pioneering, and can potentially provide useful information
based on experience also to criteria and indicators being developed for
other forms of land use and other sectors. However, present efforts in
forestry are not widely known outside the sector. It will be important to
bridge the existing information gap in this regard and, at the same time, to
closely follow developments in other Chapters of Agenda 21 (notably Chapters
10,12,13,14,15 and 40).
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
78. Intensive action in the forestry field following UNCED and increased
dissemination of information have, over the past years, lead to heightened
awareness of the need and possibilities to manage forests sustainably, and
of the role that these versatile, renewable resources can, and should, play
in national development. International and national dialogue has,
furthermore, lead to clarification of basic concepts, and has brought
together concerned parties from various levels of the Government, academia
and research, the private sector and NGO's, increasing goodwill and
confidence among these groups and providing a basis for constructive
dialogue between them.
- Proposal for action: It is of greatest importance that the present
momentum is not lost, and that efforts be made at international and
national levels to vigorously pursue action aimed at conceptualization
and, above all, implementation of criteria and indicators to guide and
improve action in sustainable management of all kinds of forests.
79. Over the past years, a growing number of countries have participated in
several international initiatives aimed at defining and implementing
national level criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.
Thanks to international dialogue, those countries and regions which have
recently joined such efforts have been able to benefit from earlier
experience, while at the same time bringing new dimensions and ideas into
the international process.
- Proposal for action: FAO and other international agencies concerned
should continue efforts to involve those countries and regions which are
not yet participating in on-going international initiatives on criteria
and indicators, making full use of already established mechanisms,
existing international fora and sub-regional and regional political
groupings. All are developing countries, which should be assisted in the
implementation of criteria and indicators at national level.
International coordination of such efforts is important to avoid a
proliferation of unrelated initiatives. Exchange of information, know-
how and experience will be necessary to ensure comparability between
initiatives and to avoid wasteful duplication of efforts.
80. Considerable progress has been made in the conceptualization of criteria
and indicators for sustainable forest management. Work has also been started
to harmonize concepts and terms used.
- Proposal for action: To support constructive dialogue and facilitate
assessment and monitoring on a comparable basis well as promoting
coordinated, field oriented action, efforts should be intensified, under
the leadership of international agencies such as FAO, UNEP and IUFRO, to
reach consensus on key concepts and terms related to criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management, and to harmonize
terminology with that used in other, related fields of forestry.
81. It is widely recognized that some of the current descriptions of
criteria and indicators may change over time, in response to emerging needs
as well as new research findings and knowledge.
- Proposal for action: Strategies at international and national levels for
the development and application of criteria and indicators should be
flexible and allow for the incorporation of changing needs and new
research findings.
82. While there appears to be a general agreement on sustainability
criteria, it has become increasingly clear that indicators, through which
progress is monitored over time, must be tailored to meet specified
economic, environmental, social and cultural conditions, operating within
institutional, legal and policy frameworks specific to individual countries.
There are thus likely to be marked differences in sets of indicators adopted
and applied by various countries, and even among countries cooperating in
the same, international initiative. Priority assigned to given criteria and
the associated indicators at national and forest management unit levels,
will also vary to reflect prevailing conditions and needs.
- Proposal for action: Based on the experience under various
international initiatives on criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management covering a wide range of forest and socio-economic
conditions (see section III), the Panel may wish to note that five
criteria may be used to characterize sustainable management of all types
of forests, namely; (i) extent of forest resources, (ii) biological
diversity, (iii) productive functions of forests, (iv) protective and
environmental functions of forests, and (v) socio-economic functions and
conditions. Furthermore, aspects of three other criteria may also be
included, if applicable and as appropriate, namely (a) forest health and
vitality, (b) global carbon cycles, and (c) policy and legal framework,
including capacity to implement sustainable forest management.
- Proposal for action: A flexible approach with a broad spectrum of
indicators will need to be maintained within the framework of
international initiatives to reflect national priorities and needs.
83. As possible convergence need not necessarily affect all indicators in
the same way, it should, in principle, be possible to identify an
international core set of common, national level indicators for sustainable
forest management. Such common indicators would most likely be mainly
related to biological and physical resources, which are more easily
comparable between countries than are social indicators. Specification of
common indicators could facilitate country-based reporting on progress
towards stated, common goals and would help determine overall, international
trends.
- Proposal for action: Efforts should be continued within the framework of
on-going initiatives and by the international community, to review the
desirability and possibilities of identifying a core set of common
indicators to facilitate assembly and handling of data and to help
streamline reporting at international level.
84. Assessment and monitoring of a small number of common indicators could,
conceivably, be incorporated into permanent mechanisms such as the global
forest resources assessments coordinated by FAO (FRA 2000). Ensuring common
measurement and assessment standards and methods worldwide is attempted
within the framework of the preparation of the FRA 2000 and some of the
parameters to be assessed in FRA 2000 are directly related to indicators of
sustainable forest management at national level identified in the four main
international processes.
- Proposal for action: Efforts should be continued by FAO and other
national and international organizations concerned to increase the
number of parameters related to sustainability indicators to be
estimated in future global forest resources assessments.
85. While conceptual thinking related to criteria and indicators at national
level is well advanced, work is only starting on their implementation. Such
implementation implies re-confirmation by countries of the pertinence of
defined criteria and indicators to national realities, and their testing and
adoption, in principle, by all concerned parties in the country. Ultimately,
criteria and indicators should be reflected in national forest policies, and
should be included in prescriptions, regulations and national legislation
governing implementation of sustainable forest management and field level
activities.
- Proposal for action: Efforts to test and adopt internationally agreed
criteria and indicators at national level, involving all concerned
parties, should be greatly stepped up by countries in those
international initiatives which have already started the process of
implementation. Countries collaborating in more recent initiatives, in
which this stage has not yet been reached, should give high priority to
this aspect in the future.
86. Implementation may be hampered, at least initially, by lack of
information relevant to some of the indicators in present surveys, by
deficiencies in assessment methodologies, and access to information on
experiences in other international initiatives.
- Proposal for action: Countries which have committed themselves to
implementation of sustainable forest management through the application
of agreed-upon criteria and indicators, should allocate adequate
resources to overcome the above constraints. Maximum use should be made
of experiences of other countries and regions through active exchange of
information.
87. Identification of gaps in information and know-how related to the
implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management,
can help determine national research priorities in the forestry field, while
at the same time ensuring that forest management is founded on sound,
scientific principles.
- Proposal for action: Full advantage should be taken by countries of the
feedback from on-going criteria and indicators initiatives when
determining future research priorities.
88. International processes have, to date, focused on the conceptualization
and implementation of national level criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management. At the same time there must be consistency between
national level criteria and indicators and those applied at the forest
management unit level. While management of a given forest management unit
cannot satisfy all national level criteria for sustainability, it must
contribute towards overall national goals of sustainability. The issue of
linkages between national and forest management unit level criteria and
indicators has, however, not yet been sufficiently addressed.
- Proposal for action: Further efforts are needed to clarify the
relationship between national and forest management unit level criteria
and indicators, and possible linkages of indicators at forest management
unit level with certification of sustainable forest management.
89. Efforts to improve prevailing forest management practices and monitoring
of trends through the application of criteria and indicators, implies new
and added demands for the regular collection, compilation and analysis of
information and a consequent long-term commitment by individual countries
and by the international community. Current institutional capacity, however,
notably in many developing countries, is grossly inadequate to implement
forest management, let alone to monitor its sustainability through the
application of criteria and indicators.
- Proposal for action: National capacities, especially in developing
countries, must be urgently strengthened not only to implement
sustainable forest management but also to collect and compile reliable
data for the monitoring of sustainability of forest management at
national level, and to ensure that information generated is relevant,
scientifically sound and technically valid.
- Concerned international organizations should be involved in the timely and
regular synthesis and dissemination of relevant information at the global
level.
90. If sustainable forest management as conceptualized at international
level is to be widely implemented at national level on a lasting basis,
international solidarity in the sharing of technologies, know-how and
information, and in making resources available to meet common needs, must
receive increased attention.
- Proposal for action: Due attention should be paid by the donor community
to the calls for technical and financial assistance, and the transfer of
appropriate technologies to developing countries in support of
implementation of sustainable forest management, recorded in the "Forest
Principles" (see especially paragraphs 8c, 10, 11 and 12).
91. There are few domestic or international policies which do not in some
way or another affect the management of a nation's forests. The area of
forests and the purposes for which they are managed, are strongly influenced
by national policies in sectors other than forestry (e.g. overall economic
policies, land tenure and agricultural development, recolonization
programmes, development of infrastructure etc.) and the impact of global
developments such as those in international trade.
- Proposal for action: It is important that governments ensure that
policies and programmes in sectors other than forestry are supportive of
sustainable management of forests and that sustainable forest management
is an integral component of national sustainable development strategies.
Accordingly, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management
should be cross-connected with those of other sectors.
- To ensure a solid basis for lasting success in sustainable forest
management, overall consistency must, furthermore, be ensured between
the implementation of criteria and indicators and other activities
undertaken in follow-up to recommendations contained in the "Forest
Principles" and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21. Close linkages must also be
forged with national and international action within the framework of
related Chapters of Agenda 21, notably Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and
40.
Notes
1/ The Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a
Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development
of All Types of Forests.
2/ Category III: Scientific Research, Forest Assessment and Development of
Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management; Programme Element
2: Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management.
3/ Document E/CN.17/IPF/1996/10.
4/ Additional information on the planned initiatives, is given in Section
IV.
5/ Some countries are represented in more than one initiative, notably
Russia (with a forest area of 739 729 000 ha), which is included in both the
Helsinki and the Montreal Process.
6/ The information is based on FAO Forestry Papers 112 and 124, and
relates to forest area (excluding "other wooded lands").
7/ Refers to Signatory States to Helsinki Resolutions H1 and H2, plus
those newly independent States which have, subsequently, participated in the
work of the Helsinki Process; plus Albania, which did not originally sign the
Resolutions, but which has recently participated in the work.
8/ Of the 8 participating countries, only Surinam is not member of ITTO.
9/ Amazonian forests only.
10/ FAO/FAO Regional Office for the Near East (RNE) Expert Meeting, to be
organized in collaboration with UNEP in Cairo, 15-17 October 1996.
11/ Expert Meeting to be organized by the Comisio'n Centroamericana de
Ambiente y Desarrollo in collaboration with FAO, with the possible assistance
of UNEP, in Costa Rica or Honduras in October or November 1996.
12/ While maintaining the overall meaning of the concepts, terminology is
not necessarily following the exact wording of the individual initiatives.
13/ The following abbreviations are used in the Table: HELS for the
European Process, MONT for the Montreal Process, TARA for the Tarapoto
Proposal, and DryZAfrica for the proposal for the Sub-Saharan Dry-Zone African
countries. The denomination, "yes", means that the criterion is explicitly
mentioned in the initiative in question; a slash (-), signifies that a
criterion is not fully enunciated, although it may have been implicitly
considered; and the denomination, "no" signifies that no explicit or implicit
reference has been made to the criterion in question.
14/ 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.
15/ ITTO has developed a set of supplementary "Guidelines", addressing the
issue of biological diversity, rather than including this as a criterion in
its forest management guidelines.
16/ 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".
17/ In the Dry-Zone Africa proposal, the criteria: "Global Carbon Cycles",
and "Extent of Forest Resources", are merged into one single criterion.
18/ In the Helsinki Process the institutional framework criterion is
included through descriptive indicators attached to each of the six other
criteria.
19/ Parallels can, in this regard, be drawn between experiences at the
national and the forest management unit levels. Preliminary results from the
CIFOR tests in Indonesia, Co^te d'Ivoire and Brazil suggested that more than
half of the forest management unit criteria and indicators related to the
policy and legal framework, ecological, and production aspects, were common to
test sites in all three countries. There was, however, a marked and sharp
decrease in this level of commonality in criteria and indicators related to
the social aspects of forest management.
20/ Appropriate linkages should, in this respect, be made with work carried
out by countries in relation to IPF Programme Element III.1.
21/ These terms include: Forest Land; Other Wooded Land; Exploitable;
Unexploitable; Stocked Forest; Unstocked Forest; Scrub, Shrub, Bushland;
Forest under Active Management; Growing Stock; Natural Forest;
Plantation Forest; Forest Fallow; Ecofloristic Zone; Volume over Bark;
Biomass; Deforestation; Fuelwood, Charcoal; Industrial Roundwood.
22/ These Background Papers were considered in the preparation of the
present report, and contributed some ideas to it.
23/ In respect to issues dealing with research appropriate linkages should
be made with work carried out by countries in relation to IPF Programme
Element I.1.
24/ These include i.a.: (i) The African Timber Organization (ATO)
initiative for green environmental marking for timber from Africa; (ii) the
Study Group on Sustainable Forest Management related to the ISO
14000 standards (the International Environmental Management Standards of the
International Standards Organization); (iii) the Eco Management and Audit
Scheme (EMAS) of the EU, which examines the possibilities to develop a system
of certification for forestry to supplement ISO initiatives; (iv) the
European Expert Group on Forest Product Certification (EU), discussing the
possibility of common forest certification throughout the EU; the new EU unit
for forest industry matters is also looking at the question of forest product
certification; (v) the ECE Timber Committee "Team of Specialists", with a
mandate to study the consequences of the introduction of systems of
certification in member countries; (vi) the Nordic Forest Certification
Project, within which government institutions, forest industry,
private owners, citizens' groups and environmental NGOs have joined forces to
develop mechanisms for forest product certification to promote efforts in
sustainable forest management in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden). The role of the Forest Stewardship Council as a
"certifier of certifiers" should also be mentioned in this connection.
25/ These include, among others, an independent, national institution
("LEI"), established with government support in Indonesia, to help establish a
system of environmental marking and forest product certification. In Malaysia,
forest industry is working with the support of the government with the aim of
establishing certification schemes for timber and wood products for export. In
Brazil, the private forestry sector has taken initiatives in certification
under the acronym "CERFLOR", to ensure the supply of "acceptable raw materials
for important markets". Initiatives are also underway in several developed
countries, notably in Europe.
26/ Recent events include, i.a.: Meetings of the Study Group on
Sustainable Forest Management, established within the framework of ISO 14000,
held in London in March 1996 and in Brazil in June 1996; the Malaysia/Canada
Conference on Forest Product Certification, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, May 1996;
and the International Conference on Certification and Labelling of Products
from Sustainably Managed Forests, Brisbane Australia May 1996 and the Expert
Working Group Meeting on Trade, Labelling of Timber and Certification of
Sustainable Forest Management, scheduled for 12-16 August in bonn,
co-sponsored by Germany and Indonesia.
27/ For a description of the information being gathered in 34 European
countries, USA and Canada, related to the effects of air-borne pollutants on
forests, see document prepared under Programme Element I/4.
28/ Twelve (out of 22 considered) of these referred to the extent of the
forest resource; 1 (out of 18 considered) to health and vitality of the
forest; and 3 (out of 11 considered) to production of wood and other forest
products. "Possible" additional indicators, to be further reviewed, included
the following: extent of the forest resource: 5; biological diversity:1;
health and vitality of the forest: 1; production of wood and non-wood
products: 1; soil and water conservation: 2; social and economic
functions: 0. Total additional indicators to the 16 identified above, which
could conceivably be considered for incorporation into global level
assessments, pending additional resources and information:
10. See document related to Programme Area III/1 for additional information.
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD