November 26, 2001

The following is intended as an example only. The information and conclusions contained in this report are not official government data, and may or may not appear in Canada's or the United States' final report. It is provided here only to illustrate what might appear in a country report.

In many places, comments are inserted in square brackets: [], and ellipses are used:[...]. These indicate material which would be expanded upon in a real report, but which is not given in full detail here.

This example report shows some of the possible ways in which indicator data can be presented; it is not exhaustive, and other ways of presenting information may also be used. Examples are mostly from Canada, but U.S. examples are included for variety.

Countries may wish to report on additional indicators not included in the Montréal Process, and may wish to present indicators in a different sequence to better coordinate them with other C&I processes. This is acceptable, as long as the MP indicators are clearly identified and are all included.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Montréal Process has developed a set of 7 criteria with 67 indicators to be used by countries for assessing national progress toward the sustainable management of their forests. This is Canada's first report on these 67 indicators.

Overall, the evident trend is towards a greater sensitivity to sustainability in Canada. While only ## of ## indicators could be fully reported on (i.e., quantitative trend data), most are addressed at least partially. ....

2. INTRODUCTION [max 2 pages]

2.1 Purpose of the Report

Following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in September 1992, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe sponsored an international seminar in Montréal on sustainable development of temperate and boreal forests. This was the first in-depth, multinational discussion of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management and it led to subsequent international initiatives, one of which is now referred to as the Montréal Process. In February 1995, at a meeting in Santiago, Chile, the Santiago Declaration was agreed to. It endorses the use of 7 national level criteria and 67 indicators developed by the ten Montréal Process countries in policy making for the "conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests". The Montréal Process has a liaison office in Canada and now includes 12 member countries representing 60% of the world's forests and accounting for nearly half the world trade in forest products. Canada published a report on its capacity to measure the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators in 1997.

At the same time the Montréal Process was unfolding, Canada embarked on an internal Criteria and Indicators (C&I) process, working from the Montréal Process C&I, through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). These are the ministers responsible for forests from each of Canada's provinces and territories, as well as the federal government. The CCFM process has resulted in a series of publications, the most recent of which is the 2000 report: Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: National Status 2000.

This report presents Canada's first attempt to measure progress against the Montréal Process criteria and indicators, and represents further evidence of Canada's commitment to sustainable development. Each of the 7 MP criteria is targeted at a different aspect of sustainability. They are: [list 7 here]. By measuring all 7, we have the basis to monitor our progress towards sustainable forest management. The report is intended for the use of [.....]

2.2 What is SFM?

The concept of sustainable forest management derives from [include International and country perspective...]

2.3 Nature of this Report

This report is the first to evaluate the sustainability of Canada's forests using the Montréal Process criteria and indicators. Like the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers report (CCFM 2000), it is intended [....]

In the interest of a nontechnical presentation and brevity, this report uses graphics rather than text wherever practical. In section 4, because of the nature of the indicators, individual indicators are described by a circle in one of three colours: green indicates the state of the indicator is improving or already satisfactory and stable, red indicates a deterioration or unsatisfactory state with no improvement, and unfilled indicates a lack of data. These are summarized for all indicators in Table 5.#.

3. Background

3.1 Canada's forests

Canada has 417.6 million ha of forest - approximately 8% of the world's forest area. In Canada, a forest is defined differently in different jurisdictions, but generally encompasses significant areas of tree or anticipated regenerating tree cover. Areas of krummholz (trees which due to extreme environmental conditions are restricted in height growth and consequently have a shrubby appearance) are sometimes included.

Canada's forests can be subdivided into xx ecoregions (Figure 1). Each region has distinct attributes and distinct history, current land use, and ecology.

Commercial exploitation of Canada's forests started in xxxx, primarily in the eastern provinces and moving into the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence region. At first, particular species such as red pine, white pine, and oak were targeted. By xxxx, the then-prime minister of Canada remarked that "...".

A major factor influence the structure and distribution of Canada's forests is the natural disturbance regime. The boreal forest is a fire-prone ecosystem, with fire return intervals ranging from decades to centuries. Additionally, insects and disease are major natural disturbance agents. Combined with fire, these disturbances affect some x million ha/year of forest in Canada. By comparison, harvesting affects x million ha/year.

3.2 Forest management in Canada

Canada's forests are owned primarily by the people of Canada - 94% of Canada's forest is owned by provincial, territorial, or federal governments. X % of that is in National Parks and other protected areas, where commercial logging is prohibited.

There are several major initiatives to improve Canadian forests and forestry sustainability. Among these are the Model Forests Network, ....

Canada has a National Forest Strategy, developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. This strategy....

An important part of this strategy is the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers criteria and indicators process, which started at about the same time as the Montréal Process, and is broadly parallel with it but with a Canadian focus.

4. Trends in National Indicators of SFM

Canada's ability to report on the 67 Montréal Process indicators was assessed in Canada's Report on the Montréal Process (Natural Resources Canada, 1997). As that report indicated, some indicators can be readily reported on with numerical data, while others can only be reported on qualitatively or even anecdotally. Some cannot be reported on at all at this time. The following section of this report provides, as fully as is practical within the limitations described in 1997 report, Canada's data for the Montréal Process criteria and indicators.

4.1 Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity

Biological diversity is the variability of living organisms and ecosystems. It includes diversity at the level of ecosystems, species, and genes. Biodiversity is essential to resilience in ecosystems, and to their productivity. This criterion is measured using nine indicators arranged in three groups: ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity.

4.1.1 Indicator 1.1.a Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area

[Example of a map display]

Ecological processes and viable populations of species that are characteristic of forest ecosystems are dependent on a contiguous ecosystem or ecosystems of a certain minimum size. Each forest type is considered to represent a separate ecosystem and is itself composed of a variety of eco-system components.

Measurements of this indicator presuppose accepted definitions of forest and forest type across Canada. As forest inventory in Canada is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, it is unclear whether the same standards are applied throughout Canada. The data presented here is the best available at this time.

4.1.1.a Indicator 1.1.a data and trends

Change in forest area by type is difficult to assess, due to a lack of historical data. Nevertheless, it can be stated with very high confidence that, since 1700, significant loss of forest cover has occurred in.... Conversely, it can be stated with high confidence that a significant increase in tree cover has occurred in the aspen parkland region. There is scattered local evidence that the northern treeline may be advancing in some regions due to recent climatic warming.

4.1.1.b Indicator 1.1.a interpretation

Overall, since European settlement (in the 18^th or 19^th century in most regions) Canada has experienced a net loss of forest area, but a net gain of aspen forest. This reflects the largely unsettled nature of the country prior to AD 1700, and the growth of Canada's population.

At the resolution of forest inventory now available, fifteen forest types, Canada's forest endowment is largely intact. There is little compelling concern regarding the overall loss in forest cover, although there are local concerns. In fact, the rate of forest loss appears to have declined during the 20th century apparently due to abandonment and afforestation of former agricultural land. The forest inventory is not fine enough to detect finer ecological variation in the presented forest types. It is, therefore, very difficult to say whether there are rare forest types whose loss should be a concern.

4.1.1.c Indicator 1.1.a data sources

Data for this indicator is derived from[....]

4.1.1 Indicator 1.1.a Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area

[alternative presentation; example of map with bar graph ]

Ecological processes and viable populations of species that are characteristic of forest ecosystems are dependent on a contiguous ecosystem or ecosystems [...]

4.1.1.a Indicator 1.1.a data and trends

Forest cover in the United States has increased from 1977 to 1997, by about 1.4 million ha. This increase has been mainly in broadleaf forests, while coniferous and mixed forests have declined [...]

4.1.1.b Indicator 1.1.a interpretation

Discussion format similar to Canadian example [...]

4.1.1.c Indicator 1.1.a data sources

• USDA Forest Service. 1982 An analysis of the timber situation in the United States 1952-2030. Forest Resource Report No. 23. Washington, DC. 499 p.
• Smith, Brad W., et al. 2001. Forest resources of the United States, 1997. To be published as a General Technical Report. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

4.1.2 Indicator 1.1.b Extent of area by forest type and by age class or successional stage

[example of text only data]

Many species are wholly or partially dependent on a particular sucessional stage. Therefore all normally occurring species should be present with sufficient area to support these species. Ecological processes and the species associated with those processes within a forest ecosystem or forest type, are associated with vegetative structure (diameter, height, stratification of the canopy, etc.).

Measurements of age-class and successional stage are subject to difficulties and uncertainties with current measurement systems used in Canada. Additional uncertainty applies to areas of non-commercial forest where inventory data are weakest. In any case, much of Canada's northern forest is composed of even-aged stands which regenerate immediately following large natural disturbances such as forest fire or insect infestations. Successional stage in such forest types, therefore, is not necessarily a useful concept. Some indication of trends in forest age can nevertheless be determined and is useful for habitat analysis in all Canadian forest types.

4.1.2.a Indicator 1.1.b data and trends

Canada's forest is mainly less than 100 years old, due in large part to frequent natural disturbances.

A net change in forest age-class distribution has occurred over the 20th century, partly in response to changes in the natural disturbance regime resulting from climate change, and to a lesser degree in response to changes in disturbances caused by humans and changes in land use.

4.1.2.b Indicator 1.1.b Interpretation

The increase in the average age of Canadian forests over the course of the 20th century could not be sustained, and probably started to reverse in the 1970s as the rate of natural disturbance increased in response to climate warming. To the extent that these changes in forest demography are natural in origin, they can be considered benevolent with regards to biological diversity. Climate change, however, is believed to underlie the recent increase in natural disturbances which is itself at least partly anthropogenic. This change in age-class structure could herald a significant change in biological diversity.

4.1.2.c Indicator 1.1.b data sources

Data for this indicator comes from.....

4.1.3 Indicator 1.1.c Extent of forest area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other classification systems

[example of bar-graph data]

This indicator offers one measure of the degree of protection a country has afforded to forest ecosystems. In the United States, various degrees of protection are offered in National, State and other parks, in wildlife reserves, and in other types of land designation. Much of the U.S. forest land, however, is privately owned without legally set aside areas for protection under any classification system.

4.1.3.a Indicator 1.1.c data and trends

Figure 4.1.3 shows reserved land in the U.S. by forest type. It shows only those protected publicly owned lands which fall in IUCN category I or II (interpreted as publicly owned lands protected from harvesting by legal statute or administrative regulation); much of the remaining publicly owned forest (223 million acres) is probably classifiable as IUCN category III - VI. Although quantitative trend data are not available for this indicator, it can be stated with confidence that the total protected area has approximately doubled since 1953. The private sector, such as The Nature Conservancy, has been protecting an increasing number of unique ecosystems but the extent and permanence of the protection has not been determined.

4.1.3.b Indicator 1.1.c Interpretation

The area protected in the U.S. is increasing. Some forest types, particularly in the east where private ownership is more dominant, are still poorly represented in protected lands. Although the U.S. strives to represent the diversity of its ecotypes within its protected area systems, such as the National Park System, the U.S. has not quantified its protected area goals. Therefore, any statement of the adequacy of U.S. protected areas systems cannot be made. However, inspection of the data for the forest types displayed makes it evident that the protection of a forest type such as loblolly-shortleaf pine may need more attention than the lodgepole pine forest type. The data does not inform us as to the adequacy of current protection. Other indicators can provide clues as to the adequacy of current forest protection.

4.1.3.c Indicator 1.1.c data sources

USDA Forest Service, 2001. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. USDA FS-687.

4.1.4 Indicator 1.1.d Extent of areas by forest type in protected areas defined by age class or successional stage

[example of text only data]

This indicator measures the forest type representativeness of the protected areas. Although forest inventories are available for federal and some provincial protected areas, many government protected areas in Canada are not inventoried, therefore, this indicator cannot be fully reported on at this time.

Anecdotally, it may be reported that the average age of trees in several of Canada's largest national parks (Banff and Jasper, for example) has increased over the 20^th century, in keeping with the aging trend of Canada's forest in general (see Indicator 1.1.b).

4.1.5 Indicator 1.1.e Fragmentation of forest types

[example of mapped data]

The fragmentation of a forest into small pieces may disrupt ecological process and reduce the availability of habitat. Some forest fragments are too small to maintain breeding populations of some species. This indicator measures forest type fragmentation for the purpose of evaluating habitat continuity. One measure of forest fragmentation is the density of road networks, as they are indicative of human disturbances in general. Roads are not, however, the only form of forest fragmentation: lakes, streams, and large-scale natural disturbances such as fire also produce forest fragmentation.

4.1.5.a Data and trends for forest fragmentation

There is no historical data available for this indicator. It is recognized, however, that Canada's road network is increasing in density in many areas, particularly in areas only recently opened to logging.

Frontier forests are defined by the World Resources Institute as areas which are primarily forested, are large enough to support viable populations of all indigenous wildlife, and to support them in the face of natural disasters such as wildfire, where the structure and composition are determined largely by natural events, where the forest displays natural heterogeneity and is dominated by indigenous tree species, and retains most if not all of its natural biodiversity. Using these criteria, Canada's forest is still 58% frontier forest. Approximately 21% of that is classified as threatened.

4.1.5.b Indicator 1.1.e interpretation

Forest fragmentation is increasing as Canada becomes increasingly settled and remote areas are opened for logging. Nevertheless, Canada still has significant areas of "frontier forest". Much of the remaining frontier forest is not likely to be opened to commercial exploitation in the near future, as it is remote from population centres and does not produce economic timber. The fragmentation of forest types has different impact on species. Although the distribution of most Canadian forest wildlife species remains similar to that of pre-settlement times, the fragmentation of forest habitat and the human impact associated with it has had an influence on the presence of large carnivore species such as the cougar in the east and the grizzly bear in the west. The maintenance of these species in the wild will require management of forest fragmentation.

4.1.5.c Indicator 1.1.e data sources

World Resources Institute: Frontier Forest Initiative. [full reference]

[other indicators for Criterion 1 following similar format adjusted as appropriate to available data]

4.1.x Criterion 1 summary

Canada's biological diversity, at the detail measured, remains similar to that of prehistoric times. While a few species have become extinct, and more are in various categories of danger of extinction, the overall picture has not been a concern. Species loss and endangerment is concentrated in the southeastern part of the country. Increases in protected areas and increased sensitivity to wildlife habitat needs as well as wildlife population numbers demonstrates a willingness in Canada to manage for biological diversity at all levels.

Future climate change may pose the greatest challenge to the protection of Canada's current forest ecosystems. Thanks largely to Canada's short history of settlement, low population density, and large expanses of a few forest types Canada's forests and their associated wildlife populations are among the most intact in the world. There is hope that this will enable Canadian forests to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

4.2 Criterion 2: [as for Criterion 1...]

4.2.4. Indicator 2d: Annual removal of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable

[example of line-graph data]

The level of harvest set by the provinces and territories for a defined time period is called the annual allowable cut (AAC).

4.2.4.a Indicator 2d data

The allowable annual cut (AAC) figures for Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba include data from federal, provincial and private lands. A national AAC is estimated by adding the harvest potential of federal and private lands to total provincial and territorial AACS. Canada's AAC has remained relatively stable over the past 27 years (Figure 4.2.4).

4.2.4.b Indicator 2.d Interpretation

Fluctuations in the national AAC are mainly the result of changes in the provincial or territorial AACs rather than in federal or private harvest potential. A number of factors may influence the decision to reduce or increase the AAC for a particular area. For example, AACs may decline in response to a regulatory requirement for a reduction in the size of clearcuts or enlarged buffer strips, or in order to accommodate other land-use requirements such as protected areas, wildlife habitat and Aboriginal land claims. AACs may increase as a result of improved inventory information (e.g., growth and yield data), utilization (e.g., total tree utilization, sawmill yields) or as a result of silvicultural practices or social values.

Between 1970 and 1997, the total harvest was consistently below the national AAC (183,000,000 m3 versus 236,000,000 m3 in 1997). The softwood harvest has been increasing since 1970. While it is still below the national AAC, some local shortages have been reported, suggesting that the limits of sustainability may have been reached in those areas. The hardwood harvest has also shown a steady upward trend since the mid-1980s, but remains well below the national AAC.

4.2.4.c Data sources

Natural Resources Canada - Canadian Forest Service, 1998 Selected Forestry Statistics in Canada 1997. (Internal document). Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1998. Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics. National Forestry Database (online) http://nfdp.ccfm.org. Accessed February 2000.

[...continued as for Criterion 1]

4.3 Criterion 3: [as for Criterion 1...]

4.3.3 Indicator 3.c: Area and percent of land with diminished biological components indicative of change in fundamental ecological processes and/or ecological continuity.

[example of indicator with no data]

This indicator is intended to show degree of ecological degradation. There is inadequate information to report on this indicator at this time.

[....continues as for criterion 1]

4.4 Criterion 4: [as for Criterion 1]

4.5 Criterion 5: [as for Criterion 1]

4.6 Criterion 6: [as for Criterion 1]

4.7 Criterion 7: [as for criterion 1]

5. Summary

Overall, Canada's ability to report on the indicators has improved incrementally since 1997. Where more recent data is available, only a few of the indicators can be said to have changed significantly since 1997. In most cases, this change reflects aging of the forest and increased emphasis on forest protection and stakeholder participation in the planning process.

Of the 67 indicators, xx are at least partially reported on here. Of these, yy show a healthy or improving condition, zz show an unhealthy or deteriorating conditions, and aa showed a neutral and unchanging condition.

Individual indicators are not by themselves very meaningful. Taken as a whole, the MP indicators reported on here show a vibrant and healthy forestry industry in Canada, as well a strong commitment to long-term sustainability of the forest and its biodiversity for future generations.

[...]