|
February 1997
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) focused world attention on
the importance of sustainable forest management as
a key component of sustainable development. In adopting
the Statement of Forest Principles and Chapter 11
of Agenda 21, UNCED recognized the importance of sustainably
managing all types of forests, including temperate
and boreal forests, to meet the needs of present and
future generations.
Following
UNCED, in September 1993, the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe sponsored an international
seminar in Montreal, Canada on Sustainable Development
of Boreal and Temperate Forests. This conference provided
the conceptual basis for subsequent regional and international
initiatives to develop criteria and indicators for
sustainable forest management.
In
June 1994, the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Temperate and Boreal Forests was formed to advance
the development of internationally agreed criteria
and indicators through a series of meetings hosted
by participating countries. This Working Group is
now known as the Montreal Process.
The
Montreal Process Working Group includes Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of
Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, United
States of America and Uruguay. These countries cover
five continents and together represent 90 percent
of the world's temperate and boreal forests (as well
as areas of tropical forests) and 60 percent of all
forests. They also account for 45 percent of world
trade in wood and wood products and 35 percent of
the world's population. The Working Group is supported
by a Liaison Office hosted by Canada in Ottawa.
The Santiago Declaration
In
February 1995 in Santiago, Chile, the original 10
Montreal Process countries endorsed a statement of
political commitment known as the "Santiago Declaration,"
together with a comprehensive set of seven criteria
and 67 indicators for the conservation and sustainable
management of temperate and boreal forests for use
by their respective policy-makers at the national
level. Argentina and Uruguay have since endorsed the
Santiago Declaration and joined the Montreal process.
The
Santiago Declaration is an important step to implementing
the UNCED Forest Principles and Agenda 21, and to
furthering the joint commitment made by tropical timber
consumer countries in January 1994 to the goal of
achieving sustainable management of their respective
forests by the year 2000.
The Montreal Process
Criteria and Indicators
The
seven criteria of the Montreal Process, which are
defined by their respective indicators, are viewed
as essential components of the sustainable management
of forest ecosystems. Six of the criteria and indicators
relate to forest conditions, attributes, functions
or benefits. Criterion 7 relates to the overall policy
framework that can facilitate sustainable forest management
and support efforts to conserve, maintain or enhance
the conditions, attributes and benefits captured in
Criteria 1-6.
Taken
together, the Montreal Process criteria and indicators
provide a common understanding and implicit definition
of what is meant by sustainable forest management.
They are tools for assessing national trends in forest
conditions and management and provide a common framework
for describing, monitoring and evaluating progress
toward sustainability at the country level. They are
not performance standards and are not intended to
assess directly sustainability at the forest management
unit level.
Application
of the criteria and indicators will help provide an
international reference for policy-makers in the formulation
of national policies, improve the quality of information
available to decision-makers and the public, and better
inform the forest policy debate at national and international
levels.
Progress on Implementation
Since
endorsing the Santiago Declaration, the Montreal Process
countries have initiated steps to apply the agreed
criteria and indicators based on national circumstances.
Working Group meetings have been hosted by New Zealand
(Auckland, November 1995) and Australia (Canberra,
June 1996) to clarify implementation issues and facilitate
initial efforts.
The
first step was an initial survey by the Liaison Office
to determine the current availability of data for
indicators in each country and the capacity of countries
to report on indicators. Interim survey results indicate
that while data availability and reporting capacity
varies greatly among the 12 countries, most countries
have data for and can report on 50 percent or more
of the 67 indicators.
The
Liaison Office survey also indicates that while resolution
of some of the data gaps and reporting problems would
involve new research and monitoring systems and new
reporting methods, others could be resolved by better
defining terms and elaborating measurement approaches.
The
variations in data availability and reporting capacity
found by the survey highlights the wide differences
among the Montreal Process countries in terms of forest
quality and quantity, land ownership, population,
system and structure of government, and economic development.
These differences pose special challenges in each
country on how to apply the criteria and indicators.
They also point to one of the great strengths of the
Montreal Process, which is the diversity of the countries
involved.
Future Outlook
Based
on the results of the Liaison Office survey, the Montreal
Process countries have agreed on a course of action
for the future. The Working Group has established
an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide
advice to the Group on technical and scientific issues
arising in connection with implementing the criteria
and indicators. The TAC met for the first time in
September 1996 in Pasadena, California to develop
recommendations on definitions for key terms used
in the Montreal Process and approaches to gathering
data on various indicators.
The
Montreal Process Working Group is also preparing a
first approximation report on the results of initial
country efforts to measure the criteria and indicators.
The report will be distributed at the Eleventh World
Forestry Congress in Antalya, Turkey in October 1997.
Korea
intends to host the Ninth Meeting of the Montreal
Process Working Group in Seoul in July 1997. The focus
of the meeting will be to review recommendations emanating
from the September 1996 meeting of the TAC and to
finalize preparations for the first approximation
report.
Participation
in meetings of the Montreal Process includes other
countries, international organizations, environmental
non-governmental organizations, industry groups and
other interested groups, as well as representatives
of other initiatives on criteria and indicators.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
MONTREAL
PROCESS: DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
| Criterion: |
- A category of
conditions or processes by which sustainable
forest management may be assessed.
- A criterion
is characterized by a set of related indicators
which are monitored periodically to assess change
|
| Indicator: |
- A measure (measurement)
of an aspect of a criterion.
- A quantitative
or qualitative variable which can be measured
or described and which when observed periodically
demonstrates trends.
|
| Ecosystem: |
- A dynamic complex
of plant, animal, fungal and micro-organism
communities and the associated non-living environment
with which they interact.
|
| Forest
type: |
- A category of
forest defined by its vegetation, particularly
composition, and/or locality factors, as categorized
by each country in a system suitable to its
situation.
|
| Monitoring: |
- The periodic
and systematic measurement and assessment of
change of an indicator.
|
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Liaison
Office expresses appreciation to the Montreal Process
Working Group members for their collaboration and support
in responding to the request for information and in
preparing the Progress report on Criteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests.
The time
available for responses has been limited but the high
quality of the information submitted has greatly facilitated
the preparation of this report.
Kathryn Buchanan
Liaison Office
Canadian Forest Service
Ottawa, Canada
SECTION
I -- INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY
Forests
are essential to the long-term well being of local
populations, national economies, and the earth's biosphere
as a whole. The UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), which met in Rio de Janiero in June 1992,
focused world attention on the importance of sustainable
forest management as a key component of sustainable
development. In adopting the Statement of Forest Principles
and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, UNCED recognized the
importance of sustainably managing all types of forests,
including temperate and boreal forests in order to
meet the needs of present and future generations.
The
development of criteria and indicators for the sustainable
management of temperate and boreal forests is an important
step in implementing the UNCED Forest Principles and
Agenda 21, and in furthering the joint commitment
made by tropical timber consumer countries in January
1994 to the goal of achieving sustainable management
of their respective forests by the year 2000.
Launching the Montreal
Process
Following
UNCED, Canada convened an International Seminar of
Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal and Temperate
Forests. This seminar, held in Montreal in September
1993 was sponsored by the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). The seminar focused
specifically on the development of criteria and indicators
for the sustainable management of temperate and boreal
forests and provided the conceptual basis for subsequent
regional and international work on criteria and indicators.
Following
the CSCE seminar, some thought was given to having
countries participating in the seminar develop criteria
and indicators for sustainable forest management.
European countries decided it was important to work
as a region under the framework of the Helsinki Ministerial
Declaration and its four resolutions to which they
were all signatories. The Pan-European effort on criteria
and indicators is now known as the Helsinki Process.
Subsequently,
Canada took the lead in launching an initiative among
other temperate and boreal countries, with the specific
purpose of developing and implementing internationally
agreed criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management. This initiative led to the formation in
June 1994 of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators
for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Temperate and Boreal Forests, now known as the Montreal
Process.
The
Montreal Process Working group includes Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of
Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, United
States of America and Uruguay. These countries cover
five continents and together represent about 90 percent
of the world's temperate and boreal forests (as well
as areas of tropical forests) and 60 percent of all
forests. They also account for 45 percent of the world
trade in wood and wood products and 35 percent of
the world's population.
Santiago Declaration
Over
the period from June 1994 to February 1995, the Montreal
Process countries met five times to pursue the development
of internationally agreed criteria and indicators.
At the Sixth Meeting of the Working Group in Santiago,
Chile, in February 1995, the original 10 participating
countries endorsed a statement of political commitment
known as the "Santiago Declaration", together with
a comprehensive set of criteria and indicators for
the conservation and sustainable management of temperate
and boreal forests for use by their respective policy
makers. Argentina and Uruguay have since endorsed
the Santiago Declaration and become members of the
Montreal Process.
At
this time, Canada generously offered to host the Liaison
Office of the Montreal Process in Ottawa, where it
still resides today. The Liaison Office provides a
number of important services to the Montreal Process,
including document preparation and distribution, process
coordination and various clearing house functions.
Implementation phase
Since
endorsement of the Santiago Declaration in February
1995, the Montreal Process countries have initiated
a follow up process to pursue country specific application
of the agreed criteria and indicators based on national
circumstances. Subsequent meetings of the Working
Group have been hosted by New Zealand (Auckland, November
1995) and Australia (Canberra, June 1996) to clarify
implementation issues and facilitate initial efforts.
Following
the meeting in New Zealand and in preparation for
the meeting in Australia, the Liaison Office prepared
an initial survey report on the "Status of Data and
Ability to Report on the Montreal Process Criteria
and Indicators", which summarizes key issues raised
by countries on data availability and the capacity
to report on the criteria and indicators. The Montreal
Process Working Group expects to complete by October
1997 a "first approximation report" on the results
of initial country efforts to apply the criteria and
indicators. The Working Group has also established
an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide
advice to the Group on technical and scientific issues
arising in connection with implementing the criteria
and indicators, including preparation of the first
approximation report.
These
recent activities of the Montreal Process Working
group are discussed in greater detail in the sections
on "Current Status" and "Future
Actions".
SECTION
II -- BACKGROUND: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
Description of criteria
and indicators
The
Montreal Process identifies seven criteria as essential
components of the conservation and sustainable management
of temperate and boreal forests:
- Conservation of
biological diversity;
- Maintenance of productive
capacity of forest ecosystems;
- Maintenance of forest
ecosystem health and vitality;
- Conservation and
maintenance of soil and water resources;
- Maintenance of forest
contribution to global carbon cycles;
- Maintenance and
enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic
benefits to meet the needs of societies;
- Legal, institutional
and economic framework for forest conservation and
sustainable management.
The
seven criteria are defined by 67 associated indicators
which are aspects of the criteria than can be measured
or described. The full set of Montreal Process criteria
and indicators is included in Appendix
2. No priority or order is implied in listing
the criteria or respective indicators. All are important.
Criteria
1-6 and related indicators characterize sustainable
forest management. They relate specifically to forest
conditions, attributes or functions, and to the multiple
values or benefits associated with the environmental
and socio-economic goods and services that forests
provide.
Criterion
7 and related indicators relate to the overall policy
framework that can facilitate the conservation and
sustainable management of a country's forests. This
includes broad social conditions and processes that
are often external to the forest itself but which
may support efforts to conserve, maintain or enhance
one or more of the conditions, attributes, functions
and benefits captured in criteria 1-6.
Purpose of criteria
and indicators
The
Montreal Process criteria and indicators provide a
common understanding of what is meant bysustainable
forest management. They are tools for assessing national
trends in forest conditions and management and provide
a common framework for describing, monitoring and
evaluating progress towards sustainability at the
country level. They are not performance standards
and are not intended to directly assess sustainability
at the forest management unit level.
Application
of the criteria and indicators will help provide an
international reference for policy-makers in the formulation
of national policies, improve the quality of information
available to decision makers and the public, and better
inform the forest policy debate at national and international
levels. The criteria and indicators could also help
provide a basis for international cooperation in support
of sustainable forest management.
Conceptual framework
of criteria and indicators
An
ecosystem based approach to forest management is reflected
in the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. Taken
together, the seven criteria and associated indicators
suggest an implicit definition of sustainable management
of forest ecosystems at the country level. No single
criterion or indicator alone is an indication of sustainability.
Rather, individual criteria and indicators should
be considered in the context of other criteria and
indicators.
Given
the wide differences in natural and social conditions
among Montreal Process countries, the specific application
and monitoring of the criteria and indicators, as
well as the capacity to apply them, will vary from
country to country based on national circumstances.
Therefore, each country will develop its own measurement
schemes and protocols for data gathering suitable
to national conditions. Despite these differences,
efforts should be made to harmonize the approaches
of countries to measuring and reporting on indicators.
While
many of the Montreal Process indicators can be readily
measured, others will involve the gathering of new
and additional data, a new program of systematic sampling
or even basic research.
Concepts
of the conservation and sustainable management of
forests are continually evolving. The Montreal Process
criteria and indicators will be reviewed and adjusted
as appropriate to reflect improvements in scientific
knowledge as to how forest ecosystems function and
respond to human interventions, increased experience
in and capability to measure indicators, advances
in technology and changing public demands for forest
products and services.
SECTION
III -- CURRENT STATUS OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND REPORTING
Since
endorsement of the Santiago Declaration in February
1995, the Montreal Process countries have initiated
steps to report on the agreed criteria and indicators
based on national circumstances. The first step has
been to get a better understanding of what data are
available for indicators in each country and the current
capacity of countries to report on the indicators.
Subsequent meetings of the Working Group have been
hosted by New Zealand (Auckland, November 1995) and
Australia (Canberra, June 1996) to clarify implementation
issues and facilitate initial efforts.
Following
the meeting in New Zealand and in preparation for
the meeting in Australia, the Liaison Office prepared
an initial survey report on the Status of Data and
Ability to Report on the Montreal Process Criteria
and Indicators, which summarizes key issues raised
by countries on data availability and the capacity
to report on the criteria and indicators.
Results
to date indicate that while the availability of data
for indicators varies among the 12 countries, most
countries have data for 50 percent or more of the
67 indicators, particularly for criterion 2 (productive
capacity of forest ecosystems), criterion 7 (policy
framework), and some of the indicators under criterion
1 (biological diversity) and criterion 6 (socio-economic
benefits). Data are least available for criterion
3 (forest ecosystem health and vitality) and criterion
4 (soil and water resources).
The
capacity to report on indicators also varies from
country to country and is generally linked with data
availability. Most countries are able to report on
many of the indicators under criteria 1, 2, 6 and
7 but have difficulty reporting on criteria 3 and
4. Several countries have difficulty reporting on
criterion 5 (global carbon cycles). Further information
on data availability and reporting capacity by criterion
is provided in Appendix 1
of this report.
While
some of these data gaps and reporting problems will
require new research and monitoring systems and new
reporting methods, others can be more easily resolved.
To this end, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
of the Montreal Process Working Group has been asked
to develop common definitions for a number of key
terms used in the indicators (e.g. biodiversity, age
class, successional stage, forest dependent community),
drawing where possible on existing definitions.
The
Working Group has also asked the TAC to explore how
forest type can be used to effectively characterize
biodiversity, and to develop explanatory notes for
a number of indicators under criteria 1-6 in order
to provide a clearer basis for countries to develop
protocols for collecting data.
The
Montreal Process Working Group will give preliminary
consideration to the results and recommendations of
the TAC in a meeting on the margins of the fourth
session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
in New York in February 1997. More detailed consideration
will be given to the TAC report at the Ninth Meeting
of the Working Group in Korea in July 1997.
SECTION
IV -- COUNTRY "VIGNETTES"
One
of the great strengths of the Montreal Process is
the diversity of countries involved. Covering five
continents, the Montreal Process countries differ
greatly in terms of the quantity, quality, characteristics
and descriptions of their forests. The countries also
differ in extent of forest, rate of forest growth,
and extent of reforestation and afforestation per
capita. National circumstances further differ with
respect to stages of economic development, land ownership
patterns, population patterns and trends, forms of
social and political organizations, and expectations
as to how forests should contribute or relate to society.
These
differences pose special challenges in each country
on how to apply the Montreal Process criteria and
indicators, including how to collect data and report
on indicators at the national level. The following
"vignettes" from several Montreal Process countries
illustrate the unique experience of each country,
the great variation from country to country, and the
particular challenges or issues faced by individual
countries.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Argentina
For
many of the criteria and indicators, Argentina currently
lacks data, while for others, existing data is dispersed
in various institutions. However, it is anticipated
that this situation will improve.
The
World Bank is financing a large scale forestry program
in Argentina. This program includes a detailed inventory
of both native forests and plantations. The program
will also finance research activities directed to
improve productivity and to diminish negative environmental
impacts in plantations and in native forests and to
improve knowledge concerning the restoration of forest
ecosystems. Research on planted forests will begin
in 1996 and on native forests in 1997.
Both
the inventory and research programs will contribute
to an improved data base which will be centralized
at the Secretary of State level and hopefully also
at the National Institute for Agricultural Technology
(INTA). While this information will be useful in providing
information for the various indicators, it is doubtful,
in view of the five-year duration of the program,
that it will provide dynamic information concerning
forest ecosystems. Accordingly, there is a need to
ascertain whether monitoring programs should be scheduled
at 5, 10 or 15 year intervals.
At
a sub-regional scale, other opportunities to develop
the necessary information for the indicators appear
promising. Large companies, mostly from the United
States, are acquiring native forests. As these companies
are to practice sustainable forest management, they
are being asked to implement an Environmental Impact
Assessment program. One of the main recommendations
from the first Environmental Impact Assessment at
Tierra del Fuego, Patagonia, was to manage the forest
following adaptive management prescriptions. For this
purpose considerable research and monitoring is necessary
which will provide high quality static and dynamic
information for the indicators. This development will
occur at the sub-regional level - hundreds of thousands
of hectares that represent one type of forest, in
this case the Andean Patagonian forest.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Australia
Australia
has approximately 44 million hectares of dense forest
and 112 million hectares of sparse forest (woodland).
The most common forest and woodland types are those
dominated by Eucalyptus and related species.
Rainforests are important in temperate, sub-tropical
and tropical areas. Dense and sparse Acacia
forests are important in drier parts while dense and
sparse Callitris forests are Australia's largest
stands of indigenous softwood species. Forested areas
in Australia are distributed in an arc around the
northern, eastern, south eastern and south western
coasts of Australia, and across Tasmania. The 44 million
ha (or 5% of the total land area) represents about
60% of that occurring prior to the arrival of Europeans
in 1778. Australia also has over one million hectares
of plantations of which about 90% are exotic pines
and 10% are indigenous species, mainly eucalypts.
The
three levels of government in Australia have specific
interests in and responsibilities for forest management.
State and Territory governments have primary responsibility
for forest management, in recognition of the constitutional
responsibility of the States for land use decisions
and their ownership of large areas of forest. Local
governments have responsibilities for local land use
planning and rating systems. The Commonwealth Government
is responsible for coordinating a national approach
to both environmental and industry-development issues
and is responsible for Australia's participation in
international forest initiatives. In addition to the
three levels of government, private owners have responsibility
for management of private forests. The above arrangements
have provided challenges for all parties in developing
a national approach to sustainable forest management
issues.
There
are basically four types of tenure for forests and
woodlands in Australia: conservation reserves where
no timber harvesting is permitted (11%); State forests
managed for multiple use including timber production
(9%); private forests (both fully owned plus leased)
usually used for timber harvesting or livestock grazing
(69%); and other public forest that is not vested
as State forest or conservation reserve (10%). The
latter may have grazing leases on them. In addition
to the 11% of forests that are in declared conservation
reserves a further 7.5% are managed as conservation
reserves within State forests.
For
the Montreal Process, Australia will primarily report
on its forests in regions where production forestry
is a significant activity but the report will include
conservation reserves. Australia recognises that the
Montreal Process criteria and indicators are applicable
to all forests, and not simply to temperate and boreal
forests. Australia will work towards applying the
Montreal Process indicator framework to report on
its temperate forests, tropical forests and its plantation
resources.
The
availability of data on the Montreal Process criteria
and indicators varies between land tenures and within
and between the States. At present most information
is available for State forests. The State and Territory
forest management agencies have collected and hold
most information on forests but over the last eight
years have been working with the Commonwealth to collate
a national forest inventory. Information on the productive
capacity of State forests and on long-term multiple
socio-economic benefits for major commercial forest
uses is relatively well known. Information on other
criteria also exists but is variable in quality and
availability. Although historical data are limited,
work is being done by governments to develop cost-effective
approaches to monitoring and interpreting the effects
of forest management. It is expected that long-term
monitoring programs for selected indicators will be
developed.
Information
for conservation reserves also varies within and between
regions and States. This information will be considerably
enhanced through the completion of the detailed environmental
and heritage assessments that will be undertaken as
part of current efforts to establish a comprehensive,
adequate and representative forest reserve system.
Information
is generally unavailable for private forests in most
regions. The application of criteria and indicators
to areas other than State forests, particularly forests
managed primarily for conservation and private forests,
will require some innovative methods to develop data
collection techniques. The indicators and monitoring
methods developed for State forests could be used
as a basis on which to build these techniques.
A great
deal of work has been and is being done to resolve
data standards issues and more broadly, sustainable
forest management issues. The first national State
of the Forests report, due to be published in early
1997, is the first detailed survey of the extent and
condition of all of Australia's forests. In the future
it is envisaged that the report, which will be repeated
at five-yearly intervals, will be aligned with Montreal
Process criteria and indicators.
Given
the decentralised nature of the management and data
collection efforts in Australia, it will be necessary
to make linkages between the Montreal Process criteria
and indicators and regional forest management programs
as part of the implementation process in Australia.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Canada
Forests
are a dominant feature of Canada's landscape, covering
417.6 million ha or 45% of the country. Canada's vast
forest resource has been integral to the development
of Canada as a nation and to Canada's culture, traditions
and history.
Canadians
depend on their forests for a wide range of values
and uses. Forests sustain the economies of hundreds
of communities across the country, moderate the climate,
prevent soil erosion, improve air and water quality,
and provide habitat for countless species of plants
and animals. They also offer a multitude of recreational
opportunities that are enjoyed by Canadians and visitors
from abroad.
The
forest land base in this country is not only immense,
it is also extremely varied. Canada's forests are
essential to the survival of many plants, animals
and other organisms. More than 200,000 species, representing
two-thirds of all species found in Canada, are dependent
on forest habitats. Eleven of Canada's fifteen terrestrial
eco-zones, based largely on climate and landform variations,
have 15% or more forest cover each with distinct groupings
and numbers of tree species. Forty tree species are
found within Canada's boreal forest, for example,
whereas the Carolinian forest in southern Ontario
contains twice that number. In total there are approximately
165 tree species in Canada. The age composition of
Canada's forests, however, is relatively uniform due
to cyclical and widespread disturbances, such as fire
and insect infestations.
Canada
is unique in that the vast majority of its forests
(94%) are publicly owned. On behalf of the public,
provincial governments manage 71%, while the federal
and territorial governments are responsible for approximately
23%. The remaining 6% of the forests are privately
owned - the property of more than 425,000 landowners.
Forest
management in Canada is a matter of provincial jurisdiction,
and each province has its own set of legislation,
policies and regulations governing forest activities
within its boundaries. The same can be said of the
Northwest Territories. In the Yukon Territory, however,
the federal government oversees the management of
forest lands through the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development. The federal government's
role in forestry focuses on forest science and technology,
trade and investment, international relations, national
statistics, Aboriginal affairs and environmental regulations.
Canada
is one of the few developed nations still richly endowed
with large areas of natural forests. Of the 417.6
million ha, 57% are considered "commercial forests"
- capable of producing a range of both timber and
non-timber benefits. However, only half of these forests
are currently accessible and managed for timber production
and, of this area, in the order of 5% are plantations.
More than 12% (50 million ha) of Canada's forests
have been protected from harvesting by policy or legislation.
Heritage forests are protected by legislation, while
protected forests are sensitive sites that are protected
by policy. The area of protected forests is roughly
equivalent in size to the total forest land in Finland,
Norway, Germany, Switzerland and Austria, combined.
For
the Montreal Process, Canada will report primarily
on the forest area covered by its 1991 national forest
inventory. Canada's Forest Inventory 1991 is the authoritative
national statement on the distribution and structure
of Canada's forests. The inventory is a spatially
referenced database containing the best information
available in 1991. Forest management agencies have
recently begun to broaden the scope of forest inventories
to encompass non-timber values. Information is most
readily available for Crown lands. This is generally
not the case for privately-owned land.
Although
Canada has a national program to monitor forest health,
it does not yet have a program to monitor changes
to its forests. The reproductive resilience of disturbed
forests in Canada, the low rates of change to other
land uses, the size of the forest, and the concentration
of effort on map-based inventories for the areas of
most active forest management has so far lessened
the urgency for surveys to monitor change in land
use and forest cover. Data on destructive agents and
activities affecting Canada's forests are reported
at a national scale by administrative, but not by
ecological boundaries.
New
data sets and monitoring systems will be required
for most of the indicators related to cultural, social
and spiritual needs and values, both in terms of resources
and benefits. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
(CCFM) has identified the data gaps and is developing
an implementation plan to acquire the data needed
to report on indicators for sustainable forest management.
Canada
has been working to develop ways to monitor its progress
to achieve sustainable forest management for almost
five years. The federal Minister of Natural Resources
is required to table in Parliament each year a report
on the state of Canada's forests. The State of Canada's
Forests 1991 first introduced a series of reference
points or indicators to help keep track of the nation's
progress in achieving sustainable forest management.
To
address the commitment to develop criteria and indicators
contained in the National Forest Strategy, as well
as the forestry commitments made at UNCED, the CCFM
established a process in 1994 to define criteria and
indicators of sustainable forest management of Canadian
forests. The development of the Canadian framework,
contained in Defining Sustainable Forest Management:
A Canadian Approach to Criteria and Indicators,
was managed by a Steering Committee composed of representatives
from government, industry, environmental organizations,
Aboriginal groups, associations of small-woodlot owners
and the academic community. This work was supplemented
by a Science Panel and a Technical Committee of scientists
and other experts. Many of the criteria and indicators
of the Canadian framework and the Montreal Process
are similar, although each framework contains some
indicators not found in the other. Canada is preparing
its first report describing its ability to assess
the country's progress in sustainable forestry. Canada
is also developing an implementation plan that will
guide future reports.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Chile
Forest
products are now a major export item in Chile, second
only to minerals. In spite of the environmental and
financial importance of their forests, many Chileans
still see them more as an obstacle to progress than
a valuable asset. This view developed in colonial
times because forests were considered worthless and
only deforested land could be used to grow crops or
graze livestock; wood availability was never a limiting
factor in those days. Mining has been the economic
mainstay of the country for centuries, while forest
products achieved prominence very recently.
The
approach to the application of the criteria and indictors
has focused on the involvement of different actors,
including the academic community, non government organisations
(NGOs), Forest Service staff and technical advisors
to public policy decision makers. The basic tool has
been a series of workshops that had a twofold effect:
providing information about the Montreal Process Criteria
and Indicators to people not familiar with the concept;
and getting from them valuable information about data
availability and reliability.
In
Chile, data are usually available and reliable when
market prices exist, for instance planted forest area
and timber volume, or forest products contribution
to the economy. A caveat is necessary here; for some
indicators such as cultural and social values and
lands managed for protection purposes, it is known
that there is no forest area devoted to such aim.
Therefore data are available and reliable, but the
information does not convey good news. These cases
might contribute to give the report a deceptively
positive outlook. Sometimes, particularly in the case
of legal and institutional indicators, the information
exists but the interpretation of its meaning is rather
difficult.
In
other cases data quality is uneven; this is particularly
evident with data collected for purposes not related
to reporting forest conditions. In such cases the
information is dispersed among different sources and
each one of them has collected the data under different
formats and covering issues which often have only
a marginal relationship with forestry. Biodiversity
is an example; knowledge about certain taxa might
include forest and non forest species. The heterogeneous
nature of Chilean Forests compounds the problem, certain
forest types are better known due to accessibility,
scientific interest or commodity production potential.
There
are a few cases where it is doubtful if the data will
be collected in the near future. The historical range
of variation is not known for certain variables and
it is not possible to predict the effect of certain
changes upon forest conditions. This applies particularly
when the problems have not originated within the forest
sector and the solutions will also be reached by changes
not related to the improvement of forestry practices.
Forest
policy and legislation are now being actively discussed
and revised in Chile; Chile's Montreal Process activities
face the challenge of providing inputs to such process
as demanded by many people and, at the same time,
to start defining the way data should be interpreted
in order to assess sustainability.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Japan
| 1. |
Forest
types |
|
Due
to the north-south geography of Japan, the following
range of forest types is distributed:
- Boreal forest
- most of Hokkaido Island
- Temperate
forest - Southern Hokkaido Island, and Honshyu,
Shikoku and Kyushyu Islands.
- Sub-tropical
forest - Amami and Okinawa Islands.
In
each forest type widely diverse and complex forest
ecosystems with a variety of species are found.
The plantation forests, which mainly comprise
Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica),
Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa)
and Japanese red pine (Pinus densiflora),
account for 40 per cent of the forest area. Forestry
activities are centred in plantation forests and
marginally in the natural forest.
|
| 2. |
Forest ownership
Forests
are divided into national forests (8 million ha)
and non-national forests (17 million ha). Non-national
forests are further divided into public forests
(3 million ha) owned by the local governments
and the private forests (15 million ha) owned
by citizens and private enterprises. The private
forests are divided among some 2.5 million forest
owners, the majority of whom are farmers. The
average ownership is as small as 5 ha. The number
of large-scale forest owners, who own more than
500 ha, is about 1,200 and their gross ownership
covers only 2 million ha or 14 per cent of the
total private forest.
|
| 3. |
Application
of criteria and indicators in Japan
|
| |
3.1 |
Direction
Due
to the vital and multiple importance of forests
a variety of institutional frameworks have been
developed and operated for the respective dimensions
of sustainable forest management. Under such circumstances,
the criteria and indicators are considered as
a supplemental measure with which existing policy
frameworks and measures are implemented in pursuit
of the well balanced forest.
|
| |
3.2 |
Activities
It
has been recognized that the criteria and indicators
need to be sufficiently operable to assess the
sustainability of forest management at the field
level. In order to ensure the practical use of
the criteria and indicators, the following activities
are planned and have partly started.
|
| |
|
3.2.1 |
Measurement
methodology development
The Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute
(FFPRI) has started its research activity at Kasama
Forest Technology Centre to develop appropriate
methodologies to measure the indicators.
|
| |
|
3.2.2 |
Field
Testing
FFPRI and the respective local governments have
set up two model forests in Japan (in Kochi and
Hokkaido) for the purpose of monitoring the indicators
and developing appropriate ecosystem management
methods.
|
| |
|
3.2.3 |
Monitoring
system development
Establishment of a nation-wide monitoring system
after 1997 through which indicators would be monitored
at nationally distributed fixed plots is being
considered.
|
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Korea
In
reporting the assessment of data on criteria and indicators,
there have been difficulties in defining the meanings
of some indicators. For some indicators the assessment
could be reported in various ways, depending upon
the interpretation of the indicators. In general,
data for many indicators within the conservation of
biological diversity criterion have been accumulated
relatively widely for past years. However, assessment
of some indicators such as the status of forest- dependent
species at risk was based on limited data for threatened
and rare species. Information on indicators of genetic
diversity in forests posed definitional problems which
should be further refined.
Information
on productive capacity of forest ecosystems in Korea
has been generally available and accurate because
related data have been collected through remote sensing
techniques. This includes aerial photographic interpretation
and, more recently, satellite data as well as by field
checking surveys. There is a need to clarify the methods
to determine the sustainable level of timber harvest
and non-timber forest products.
In
past years, Korea has put much emphasis on the protection
of forests and the reduction of damage. Therefore,
data on the area of forest affected by insects and
disease and by forest fire have been extensively collected
because strong control measures have been applied
nationally to protect forest resources. However, information
on the impact of air pollutants has not been collected
and a research monitoring system has just started.
Surveys on ecological processes and continuity would
require a lot of time and effort.
Some
data on soil and water conservation are readily available
as erosion control measures and forest reserve systems
have been actively pursued across the country in recent
years. However, information on the biological, chemical
and physical changes of forest lands and water bodies
and/or streams is not currently available and it is
doubtful whether such data will be collected in the
near future. Some scientific research has been conducted
at very specific sites.
A preparatory
study on forest contribution to the carbon budget
has commenced only since the Rio Summit with data
on total forest biomass and carbon pool now being
collected. However, information on carbon absorption
and release of coarse woody debris, peat and soil
carbon is non existent because of lack of data on
these components. Surveys on duration and amount of
various forest products have started and results could
be available in the near future.
In
general, data related to production and consumption
of forest products have been assessed on a regular
basis. In the recreation and tourism sector, information
is available except for recreation visitor days which
could be provided only through detailed surveys. Because
of the forest reserve systems in Korea, forest lands
for cultural, social and spiritual values are easily
quantified. But some information on forest investment
and employment are currently lacking.
Legal
and institutional frameworks to support the conservation
and sustainable management of forests in Korea have
generally been incorporated in the forest-related
laws, guidelines and regulations. An economic framework
for sustainable forest management is also included
and will be enhanced in laws and regulations. Some
indicators in research and development capability,
including human impacts, cannot be assessed. Overall
assessment of much data could be easily accessible,
but it could take a long time to obtain data on not-easily-available
indicators.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Mexico
The
Montreal Process countries currently are facing the
stage of implementation of criteria and indicators
for the conservation and sustainable management of
their forests. However, there are a number of issues
that impose limits on the ways of reporting on all
indicators. From Mexico's point of view, there are
several problems regarding the availability of information
for several criteria and indicators and a lack of
information for others. For these reasons there is
a need to develop a standardized method of reporting
for all countries.
During
the development of Mexico's national report for the
Canberra meeting, difficulties in reporting forest
ecosystems at the national level became apparent.
This is because in Mexico there are three types of
land ownership and four classes of forest ecosystems
(temperate forest, tropical rain and dry forests and
arid vegetation); there are natural forests managed
for multiple uses, natural forests managed for conservation,
and forest plantations managed for restoration of
forest ecosystems and for wood production. The availability
of data differs in each case according to the level
of forest management activities carried out. It should
be noted that the major issues faced by Mexico were
presented for each criterion in Mexico's national
report.
From
Mexico's perspective, the main difficulty in filling
information gaps for several criteria and indicators
is the time for monitoring all forest ecosystems and
different types of land ownership at the same level.
In the meantime, Mexico considers it very important
to work in developing a weighted methodology for all
Montreal Process countries, that permits reporting
at the national level in order to enable international
comparisons between countries in the Montreal Process.
Justifications for this approach are:
- The status of some
indicators varies significantly depending on the
type of forest land ownership.
- The status of some
indicators varies significantly depending on the
forest ecosystem.
- The accuracy and
availability of data on several indicators for the
kind of characteristics above are significantly
different. For example, Mexico has more detailed
information for temperate forest than for tropical
rain and dry forest.
- The status of some
indicators varies significantly depending on the
forest type.
- Mexico considers
that one method of reporting can be based on the
three forest types presented at the Eighth Working
Group meeting. However, further discussion is required
in order to confirm that all member countries can
develop the proposal.
Mexico
proposes that methodology be developed in order that
data may be aggregated and weighted by forest type,
land ownership and forest ecosystem in order to develop
the best approach to obtain the national report for
each country.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
New
Zealand
The
New Zealand Situation - Reporting of Different Forest
Types
The
reporting of different forest types and the manner
in which data are aggregated are issues which must
be considered in national reports under the Montreal
Process.
During
the development of New Zealand's national report for
the eighth meeting of the Montreal Process, difficulties
were seen in reporting on all forest types. Of particular
note was the reporting on the different requirements
of:
- natural forests
managed for conservation values
- natural forests
managed for multiple use including wood production
- planted forests
managed for wood production.
A key
issue for New Zealand's involvement in the Montreal
Process is to ensure the rather unique position of
relying predominantly on planted forests for its timber
resource is recognised. The planted forests have allowed
New Zealand to set aside a high proportion of its
natural forests. The natural forests are primarily
managed for their conservation values, including the
maintenance of biological diversity.
In
order to effectively develop a national report each
country needs to undertake an assessment of the status
of each forest type and aggregate the data. In the
aggregation process it is very easy to lose important
information on the status of each forest type.
New
Zealand put forward a proposal at the eighth meeting
of the Montreal Process suggesting that countries
could, if appropriate report separately on each forest
type. The meeting agreed that aggregation of data
should occur and that there was a need to be transparent
in methods used when reporting on criteria and indicators.
To achieve transparency it was also agreed that countries
should provide narrative comment on how data was sourced
and used in reporting.
As
undoubtedly comparisons will be made between countries
New Zealand supports the concept of transparency being
achieved by providing narrative comment when data
is aggregated.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
United
States of America
The Challenge of
Multiple Government Jurisdictions and Land Ownerships
The
United States of America is a federated republic and
a constitutional democracy. The government is highly
decentralized. All powers and responsibilities not
clearly reserved by the federal (national) government
due to overriding national importance rest with the
50 states and, where the States have further delegated
their authorities, with more than 3,000 local government
units.
In
the U.S., the 50 states are individually responsible
for providing land management guidance for state-owned
and private forests, which account respectively for
about 5% (15 million ha) and 60% (180 million ha)
of all U.S. forests. There are 10 million private
forest owners in the U.S. whose land comes under State
jurisdiction.
Nationally,
several agencies of the federal government (Forest
Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of Defense,
etc.) are responsible for managing the remaining 35%
of U.S. forests (105 million ha) which are publicly
owned and occur largely in the western part of the
country.
The
size and distribution of private forest land varies
tremendously across the country, and reflects evolving
patterns of settlement from early colonization and
independence through successive waves of western expansion.
Most eastern forests, the first settled, belong to
millions of small owners. By contrast, in the West,
vast tracts of forest are managed by a wide variety
of federal and state agencies and Native American
tribes. Throughout the country, large forest areas
are owned by forest product companies.
Forest inventory
and data collection to date
Decentralized
government responsibilities, historic settlement patterns
and multiple public and private forest owners (with
various socio-economic and cultural perspectives)
have had a direct bearing on the data collected and
maintained on forest lands in the U.S. in several
ways.
First,
agricultural and industrial development in the country
has traditionally valued forests for wood production.
Since 1930, the U.S. has had a national plot Forest
Inventory and Assessment (FIA) system that collects
data on forest extent, type, growth and other timber
values. However, while these data include public and
private forests and are statistically adequate for
most national level assessments, they exclude the
significant portion of federal forests that are closed
to wood production, such as national parks, wildlife
refuges and wilderness areas.
Secondly,
because of the traditional interest in wood production,
very little economic data exists on non-timber forest
gathering activities and products, such as berry picking
and mushroom collection, even on federally managed
forests where these activities tend to occur.
Thirdly,
data on recreation and other public uses, and related
natural resource values (e.g. biodiversity, forest
health and vitality) is only available for federal
and some state managed forests. The coverage and extent
of the data can vary widely from state to state or
even forest to forest. For example, while a great
deal of site level resource data describing natural
forest values on public forests (primarily in the
West) has been collected in response to site-specific
environmental assessments, the data cannot be easily
aggregated.
In
addition, very little data is available for private
lands. In the U.S., private owners are not obliged
to permit public access or activity on their land.
Most owners, particularly in the East, prohibit public
trespass of any kind.
Regarding
the legal and institutional framework for sustainable
forest management, the U.S. has relevant policies,
regulations, and programs at all levels of government.
However, the 50 states, and in some cases local communities,
have jurisdiction over activities on the 60% of U.S.
forests that are privately owned. State regulations
and institutions vary widely based on state policies
and priorities. While information on state and local
laws and practices could be surveyed to form a complete
national picture, this has not been done to date.
Implications for
the Future
In
summary, a vast amount of forest data is available
in the U.S., including a relatively comprehensive
national inventory of wood production values. However,
much of the non-wood data has been collected by different
entities at different times for different purposes
using different approaches. Therefore, much of the
existing data on biodiversity, forest health, soil
and water conservation, and public use lacks consistency
and is inadequate for national level assessments,
especially as little data is available for private
lands. Virtually no data exist for non-timber products.
The
challenge is to obtain adequate national data on indicators
in these areas. To help meet this challenge, work
is underway to develop a new national forest health
monitoring system in the U.S. Ideally, this would
be designed to enhance and complement the existing
FIA system by including many of the non-wood indicators
under criteria 1-5 of the Montreal Process. This will
take time and resource commitments at the national
level. It will also require the full cooperation of
the 50 states and a number of local governments. Equally
important, where data cannot be collected through
remote sensing, it will require the cooperation of
the vast number of private forest owners in the U.S.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Uruguay
Uruguay
has a total area of 667,315 ha of natural forests and
314,758 ha of man-made forests. Of the latter, 164,138
ha are classified as commercial forest, while 150,620
are protection and farm forests. For the past three
years, and within the framework of the new forest policy,
the afforestation rate has been 35,000 ha annually.
With such increasing forest development, Uruguay has
determined that it will start a program to develop criteria
and indicators.
The current
national situation with respect to the seven criteria
is as follows:
Criterion 1:
Conservation of biological diversity
Since
1980 there has been no forest inventory and accordingly
all available data are estimated. However, the first
stage of a forest inventory project will commence
this year and the indicators under the criterion will
be considered in the inventory.
Criterion 2: Maintenance
of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
With
the basic forest inventory information, the sustainable
volume will be determined with higher accuracy.
Criterion 3: Maintenance
of forest ecosystem and vitality
Since
1990 a national forest protection program has been
approved and a national survey aimed at determining
causes of forest damage is being planned. Even though
there are not historical records, the degree of damage
is not considered significant.
Criterion 4: Conservation
and maintenance of soil and water resources
A program
dealing with the impacts on the forest environment
is starting. Emphasis will be placed on soil and water
conservation.
Criterion 5: Maintenance
of forest contribution to global carbon cycles
The
comment relative to Criterion 4 is applicable.
Criterion 6: Maintenance
and enhancement of long-term socio-economic benefits
to meet the needs of society
Work
started last year on the multiple social and economic
benefits of forestry. The work will be finalized this
year; future work is expected to be carried out by
the Statistics and Census Service in a manner similar
to that done for the industry, livestock and agriculture
sectors.
Criterion 7: Legal,
institutional and economic framework for forest conservation
and sustainable management
The
Uruguayan forest policy and legislation address the
following goals:
- natural forest protection,
through forbidding clear cutting unless the Forestry
Division approves a management plan,
- forest resources
improvement by promoting man-made forests with the
proper species on low productivity soils normally
used for other purposes such as agriculture and
livestock,
- forbidding the afforestation
with exotic species on non suitable soils and in
areas exceeding 100 ha, except where environmental
impact assessments have been carried out.
There
are no land ownership problems in Uruguay and there
is no indigenous population.
By
the end of 1996 the Forestry Directorate will contact
and coordinate with other government agencies those
actions aimed at completing the assessment of the
indicators. By 1997 information will be available
concerning all indicators.
SECTION
V -- FUTURE ACTION
Eighth Meeting Decisions
The
recent meeting of the Montreal Process was held in
Canberra, Australia, June 3-7, 1996. The meeting was
attended by representatives of all twelve participating
countries and by representatives of the Helsinki Process,
the Tarapoto Process, the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), the International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO), the International Union
of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), the Intergovernmental
Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable
Forest Management (ISCI), international environmental
NGOs such as the Global Forest Policy Project, other
countries, Australian agencies and other interest
groups, including forest industry groups.
At
this meeting the Montreal Process countries agreed
on a course of action for the future.
Technical Advisory
Committee
The
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Montreal
Process Working Group met for the first time in Pasadena,
California in September 1996 to begin developing recommendations
for the Working Group on definitions for key terms
used in the indicators, on the utility of forest type
as a means to characterize biological diversity, and
on text for explanatory notes for a number of indicators
under criteria 1-6.
The
formation of the TAC is expected to greatly assist
the Montreal Process Working Group in efforts to collect
data and report on criteria and indicators. A continuing
role is foreseen for the TAC as technical and scientific
issues arise based on experience gained and problems
encountered in the course of implementation efforts.
First Approximation
Report
The
Montreal Process Working Group is in the early stages
of preparing a first approximation report on implementing
the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. The
Report, which will be distributed at the Eleventh
World Forestry Congress in Antalya, Turkey in October
1997, will include information relating to countries'
implementation of the criteria and indicators and
provide a general analysis of the data that countries
are currently able to collect on indicators.
In
order to promote transparency in methods used by individual
countries when reporting on criteria and indicators,
the country reports will contain narratives for indicators
explaining how data was sourced and used in reporting.
This type of information will be synthesized as appropriate
in the first approximation report.
While
many countries will have minimal data for several
indicators, as indicated in the section on Current
Status, the report will provide a good baseline for
future efforts to implement the Montreal Process criteria
and indicators.
Next Montreal Process
Meeting
Korea
will host the Ninth Meeting of the Montreal Process
Working Group in July 1997. The major focus of the
meeting will be to review recommendations of the TAC
with respect to common definitions for key terms used
in the criteria and indicators and on approaches to
gathering data. The meeting will also finalize preparations
for the first approximation report.
Joining the Montreal
Process
The
Montreal Process Working Group is open-ended. Member
countries are united by their endorsement of the Santiago
Declaration, which is a joint statement of political
commitment to the application of national level criteria
and indicators for sustainable forest management in
their respective countries.
The
procedure for other countries to join the Montreal
Process is a diplomatic one. An interested country
should, by diplomatic channels, inform the Government
of Chile that its government endorses the Santiago
Declaration. Chile will inform Canada as the Liaison
Office, which will inform the other Montreal Process
countries.
APPENDIX
1 -- OVERVIEW OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND REPORTING BY
CRITERION FOR MONTREAL PROCESS COUNTRIES
Criteria: 1
2 3 4
5 6 7
Criterion
1. Conservation of biological diversity
Data
availability
Most
countries have data available to report on the indicators
dealing with the extent of area byforest type and
with the extent of protected area. However, less data
are available when this information is qualified by
age or successional status. With the exception of
Mexico, there is virtually no information available
concerning forest fragmentation.
Regarding
species diversity, most countries have data available
for at least one of the two indicators. There is little
data available for the indicators on genetic diversity.
Key
issues concerning data availability tend to be country
specific and include the need for a meaningful classification
of forest types, the problem of assigning age to uneven-aged
stands, the availability of comparable trend information,
conflicting definitions regarding multiple use forest
management and designation of protected areas, limited
data on genetic diversity, costs of funding a periodic
national forest inventory and the variety in land
tenure arrangements. There is also a general lack
of consensus on measurements for forest fragmentation.
Reporting
Most
countries have effective methodologies to assess many
indicators under this criterion. However, Uruguay
lacks methodologies for most indicators with the exception
of ecosystem diversity, and the United States has
reliable data for only a few indicators that include
the extent of forest type relative to forest area
and age class. In addition, a number of countries
lack the capacity to report on fragmentation and genetic
diversity.
Key
issues include the need to develop methodologies to
report on fragmentation of forest types, the need
to establish new monitoring systems for species diversity
and the need for inventories, research and development.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
Data
availability
Data
are generally available for all indicators for the
majority of countries. The exception is the indicator
dealing with the annual removal of non-timber forest
products, for which no country has adequate data.
Key
issues include limited availability of data for forests
on private land, comparability of historical data,
and lack of information on sustainable volume removals
of both wood and non-wood products.
Reporting
Most
countries have some capacity to report on the indicators
under this criterion with the exception of the removal
of non-timber forest products.
Key
issues include the need to develop methodologies for
reporting on sustainable levels and types of forest
products, the lack of national monitoring programs
or protocols and base line productivity levels, the
need for research on ecological interactions between
species and forest ecosystems and the need for research
to stratify forests by eco-zones, to improve evaluation
methodologies and standardize inventory programs.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem vitality and health
Data
availability
This
is one of the criteria for which there is a minimum
of data. However, about half the countries indicated
they have some data for the indicator dealing with
forest damage. No countries have data for indicators
on air pollutants and diminished biological components.
Two countries indicated that data are not presently
available for any of the three indicators.
Key
issues include the fact that historic variation in
some cases can only be considered in the context of
the past few decades and that the effect on forests
of air pollution is not yet perceived to be a widespread
problem in some countries.
Reporting
Most
countries indicate they will face challenges in reporting
on the three indictors in this criterion. With the
exception of Canada, Korea, New Zealand (for plantations)
and Russia, countries have limited or no capacity
for reporting.
Key
issues include the lack of national standard protocols
for monitoring and summarizing results, the need for
clarification of terms such as diminished biological
components and vitality, the need for new monitoring
systems for all three indicators and the need for
further research.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
Data
availability
With
the exception of the indicator dealing with forest
land managed primarily for protective functions, most
countries do not have data available for the other
indicators. Only China, Korea and Mexico have data
available for soil erosion.
The
key issue is the need for new systems of data collection.
Reporting
All
countries indicate they will face challenges in reporting
on the eight indicators in this criterion. China and
Russia have the best capability with China having
some information on four of eight indicators (soil
erosion, protective functions of forests, streamflow
damage, changes in soil chemical properties) and Russia
on three (soil erosion, protective functions of forests,
toxic substances). Canada has some information on
two indicators (protective functions of forests, toxic
substances).
The
key issue is the need for new monitoring systems.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles
Data
availability
Countries
vary considerably in data availability for the three
indicators. Data are more readily available for the
indicator dealing with forest ecosystem biomass and
least available for the indicator concerning the contribution
of forest products to the global carbon budget.
Key
issues include the need for research to provide improved
data, especially for certain eco-zones.
Reporting
This
criterion poses difficulties in reporting for many
countries, with the exceptions of New Zealand (for
plantations), Russia and the United States. Canada
has some capacity in all three indicators and reporting
capacity will be easy to moderate. China has capacity
to report on the three indicators although reporting
will be moderate for the forest ecosystem biomass
indicator and difficult for forest products in the
global carbon budget. Information is sketchy to incomplete,
at best, limiting the reporting capacities for other
countries. Australia is undertaking research to improve
its reporting capability for the three indicators
particularly for global carbon estimates.
Key
issues include the need for new methodologies for
estimating and reporting carbon budget and forest
ecosystem biomass and for new monitoring systems to
report on the indicators in this criterion.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple
socio- economic benefits
Data
availability
With
the number of and variation in the 19 indicators within
this criterion, the wide range in data availability
is not surprising. Most data are available for the
production and consumption indicators while least
data are available for certain indicators dealing
with recreation and tourism, cultural, social and
spiritual needs, and for employment and community
needs.
In
general, those indicators with most data available
are related to the value and volume of wood production,
the supply and consumption of wood products, and average
wage rates in the forestry sector. Data are limited
or lacking for about six of the 19 indicators.
Key
issues include the lack of data for non-wood products,
the limitation of data to specific products such as
Christmas trees and maple products, the lack of data
on recycling of products other than pulp and paper,
the lack of data on recreation and tourism on private
land and the lack of data on investment and on research
and development expenditures by the private sector.
Reporting
All
countries have some capacity, if limited, to report
on the first six indicators dealing with production
and consumption. However, most countries have limited
experience assessing the status of forest dependent
communities, forest land for subsistence purposes
and non-consumptive forest values.
Key
issues include the need to enhance inventories, research
and development to improve reporting capacity, the
need for all countries to agree on the use of multipliers
regarding indirect employment in the forestry sector,
the need for development of assessment systems for
indicators concerning new and improved technologies,
forest dependent communities and non-consumptive use
forest values, and the lack of information about cultural,
social and spiritual needs.
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
7. Legal, institutional and economic framework
Data
availability
Data
availability is high for the 20 indicators within
this criterion, with most data or some data available
for virtually all indicators. There are some differences,
however, with indicators dealing with legal, institutional
and economic frameworks generally having more data
available than indicators that measure and monitor
change and with research and development. Only two
countries have indicated that data are not available
for several indicators.
Key
issues include the fact that performance indicators
are required for some indicators, that for certain
indicators it will be difficult to assess their impact
on sustainable forest management, that some data will
be difficult to collect from private industry and
that surveys will be required to collect information
for many of the indicators.
Reporting
Reporting
will be easy to moderately difficult for the majority
of countries for most of the indicators. Some countries
will have difficulty reporting on indicators dealing
with impacts on sustainable management, measuring
environmental and social costs and benefits and predicting
impacts of human interventions on forests. Most will
have difficulty with the five research and development
indicators.
Key
issues include the need for development of new research
systems and reporting methodologies for indicators
dealing with the ability to measure and monitor change,
the need for new methods of reporting, the need for
a uniform interpretation of indicators and the lack
of an ability to predict impacts of possible climate
change on forests.
APPENDIX
2 -- MONTREAL PROCESS CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR THE
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TEMPERATE
AND BOREAL FORESTS
Criteria: 1
2 3 4
5 6 7
Criterion
1: Conservation of biological diversity
Biological
diversity includes the elements of the diversity of
ecosystems, the diversity between species, and genetic
diversity in species.
Indicators:
| 1.1 |
Ecosystem
diversity |
|
1.1.a. |
Extent
of area by forest type relative to total forest
area-(a);1 |
|
1.1.b. |
Extent
of area by forest type and by age class or successional
stage-(b); |
|
1.1.c. |
Extent
of area by forest type in protected area categories
as defined by IUCN2
or other classification systems-(a); |
|
1.1.d. |
Extent
of areas by forest type in protected areas defined
by age class or successional stage-(b); |
|
1.1.e. |
Fragmentation
of forest types-(b). |
| 1.2 |
Species
diversity |
|
1.2.
a. |
The
number of forest dependent species-(b); |
|
1.2.
b. |
The
status (threatened, rare, vulnerable, endangered,
or extinct) of forest dependent species at risk
of not maintaining viable breeding populations,
as determined by legislation or scientific assessment-(a). |
| 1.3 |
Genetic
diversity |
|
1.3.
a. |
Number
of forest dependent species that occupy a small
portion of their former range-(b); |
|
1.3.
b. |
Population
levels of representative species from diverse habitats
monitored across their range-(b). |
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
Indicators:
- Area of forest land
and net area of forest land available for timber production-(a);
- Total growing stock
of both merchantable and non-merchantable tree species
on forest land available for timber production-(a);
- The area and growing
stock of plantations of native and exotic species-(a);
- Annual removal of
wood products compared to the volume determined to
be sustainable-(a);
- Annual removal of
non-timber forest products (e.g. fur bearers, berries,
mushrooms, game), compared to the level determined
to be sustainable-(b).
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
3: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality
Indicators:
- Area and percent of
forest affected by processes or agents beyond the
range of historic variation, e.g. by insects, disease,
competition from exotic species, fire, storm, land
clearance, permanent flooding, salinisation, and domestic
animals-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land subjected to levels of specific air pollutants
(e.g. sulfates, nitrate, ozone) or ultraviolet B that
may cause negative impacts on the forest ecosystem-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land with diminished biological components
indicative of changes in fundamental ecological processes
(e.g. soil nutrient cycling, seed dispersion, pollination)
and/or ecological continuity (monitoring of functionally
important species such as fungi, arboreal epiphytes,
nematodes, beetles, wasps, etc.)-(b).
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
This
criterion encompasses the conservation of soil and
water resources and the protective and productive
functions of forests.
Indicators:
- Area and percent of
forest land with significant soil erosion-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land managed primarily for protective functions,
e.g. watersheds, flood protection, avalanche protection,
riparian zones-(a);
- Percent of stream
kilometres in forested catchments in which stream
flow and timing has significantly deviated from the
historic range of variation-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land with significantly diminished soil organic
matter and/or changes in other soil chemical properties-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land with significant compaction or change
in soil physical properties resulting from human activities-(b);
- Percent of water bodies
in forest areas (e.g. stream kilometres, lake hectares)
with significant variance of biological diversity
from the historic range of variability-(b);
- Percent of water bodies
in forest areas (e.g. stream kilometres, lake hectares)
with significant variation from the historic range
of variability in pH, dissolved oxygen, levels of
chemicals (electrical conductivity), sedimentation
or temperature change-(b);
- Area and percent of
forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent
toxic substances-(b).
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles
Indicators:
- Total forest ecosystem
biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest
type, age class, and successional stages-(b);
- Contribution of forest
ecosystems to the total global carbon budget, including
absorption and release of carbon (standing biomass,
coarse woody debris, peat and soil carbon)-(a or b);
- Contribution of forest
products to the global carbon budget-(b).
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple
socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies
Indicators:
| 6.1 |
Production
and consumption |
|
6.1.a. |
Value
and volume of wood and wood products production,
including value added through downstream processing-(a); |
|
6.1.b. |
Value
and quantities of production of non-wood forest
products-(b); |
|
6.1.c. |
Supply
and consumption of wood and wood products, including
consumption per capita-(a); |
|
6.1.d. |
Value
of wood and non-wood products production as percentage
of GDP-(a or b); |
|
6.1.e. |
Degree
of recycling of forest products-(a or b); |
|
6.1.f. |
Supply
and consumption/use of non-wood products-(a or b). |
| 6.2 |
Recreation
and tourism |
|
6.2.a. |
Area
and percent of forest land managed for general recreation
and tourism, in relation to the total area of forest
land-(a or b); |
|
6.2.b. |
Number
and type of facilities available for general recreation
and tourism, in relation to population and forest
area-(a or b); |
|
6.2.c. |
Number
of visitor days attributed to recreation and tourism,
in relation to population and forest area-(b). |
| 6.3 |
Investment
in the forest sector |
|
6.3.a. |
Value
and volume of wood and wood products production,
including value added through downstream processing-(a); |
|
6.3.b. |
Level
of expenditure on research and development, and
education-(b); |
|
6.3.c. |
Extension
and use of new and improved technologies-(b); |
|
6.3.d. |
Rates
of return on investment-(b). |
| 6.4 |
Cultural,
social and spiritual needs and values |
|
6.4.a. |
Area
and percent of forest land managed in relation to
the total area of forest land to protect the range
of cultural, social and spiritual needs and values-(a
or b); |
|
6.4.b. |
Non-consumptive
use forest values-(b). |
| 6.5 |
Employment
and community needs |
|
6.5.a. |
Direct
and indirect employment in the forest sector and
forest sector employment as a proportion of total
employment-(a or b); |
|
6.5.b. |
Average
wage rates and injury rates in major employment
categories within the forest sector-(a); |
|
6.5.c. |
Viability
and adaptability to changing economic conditions,
of forest dependent communities, including indigenous
communities-(b); |
|
6.5.d. |
Area
and percent of forest land used for subsistence
purposes-(b). |
[Back
to Top] · [Table of Contents]
Criterion
7: Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest
conservation and sustainable management
Indicators:
| 7.1 |
Extent
to which the legal framework (laws, regulations,
guidelines) supports the conservation and sustainable
management of forests, including the extent to which
it: |
|
7.1.a. |
Clarifies
property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure
arrangements, recognizes customary and traditional
rights of indigenous people, and provides means
of resolving property disputes by due process; |
|
7.1.b. |
Provides
for periodic forest-related planning, assessment,
and policy review that recognizes the range of forest
values, including coordination with relevant sectors; |
|
7.1.c. |
Provides
opportunities for public participation in public
policy and decision-making related to forests and
public access to information; |
|
7.1.d. |
Encourages
best practice codes for forest management; |
|
7.1.e. |
Provides
for the management of forests to conserve special
environmental, cultural, social and/or scientific
values. |
| 7.2 |
Extent
to which the institutional framework supports the
conservation and sustainable management of forests,
including the capacity to: |
|
7.2.a. |
Provide
for public involvement activities and public education,
awareness and extension programs, and make available
forest-related information; |
|
7.2.b. |
Undertake
and implement periodic forest-related planning,
assessment, and policy review including cross-sectoral
planning and coordination; |
|
7.2.c. |
Develop
and maintain human resource skills across relevant
disciplines; |
|
7.2.d. |
Develop
and maintain efficient physical infrastructure to
facilitate the supply of forest products and services
and support forest management; |
|
7.2.e. |
Enforce
laws, regulations and guidelines. |
| 7.3 |
Extent
to which the economic framework (economic policies
and measures) supports the conservation and sustainable
management of forests through: |
|
7.3.a. |
Investment
and taxation policies and a regulatory environment
which recognize the long-term nature of investments
and permit the flow of capital in and out of the
forest sector in response to market signals, non-market
economic valuations, and public policy decisions
in order to meet long-term demands for forest products
and services; |
|
7.3.b. |
Non-discriminatory
trade policies for forest products. |
| 7.4 |
Capacity
to measure and monitor changes in the conservation
and sustainable management of forests, including: |
|
7.4.a. |
Availability
and extent of up-to-date data, statistics and other
information important to measuring or describing
indicators associated with criteria 1-7; |
|
7.4.b. |
Scope,
frequency and statistical reliability of forest
inventories, assessments, monitoring and other relevant
information; |
|
7.4.c. |
Compatibility
with other countries in measuring, monitoring and
reporting on indicators. |
| 7.5 |
Capacity
to conduct and apply research and development aimed
at improving forest management and delivery of forest
goods and services, including: |
|
7.5.a. |
Development
of scientific understanding of forest ecosystem
characteristics and functions; |
|
7.5.b. |
Development
of methodologies to measure and integrate environmental
and social costs and benefits into markets and public
policies, and to reflect forest-related resource
depletion or replenishment in national accounting
systems; |
|
7.5.c. |
New
technologies and the capacity to assess the socio-economic
consequences associated with the introduction of
new technologies; |
|
7.5.d |
Enhancement
of ability to predict impacts of human intervention
on forests; |
|
7.5.e. |
Ability
to predict impacts on forests of possible climate
change. |
1:
Indicators followed by an "a" are those for which
most data are available. Indicators followed by
a "b" are those which may require the gathering
of new or additional data and/or a new program
of systematic sampling or basic research.
2:
IUCN categories include: I. Strict protection,
II. Ecosystem conservation and tourism, III. Conservation
of natural features, IV. Conservation through
active management, V. Landscape/Seascape conservation
and recreation, VI. Sustainable use of natural
ecosystems.
|
|
