Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management

and the Montreal Process

Objectives

In this presentation:• You will learn about the origins of the Montreal

Process• You will learn about some of the other criteria and

indicator schemes• You will learn what is meant by a criterion and an

indicator• You will understand why criteria and indicators (C&I)

form the basis for sustainable forest management

Background

• In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

• The conference was a critical moment in environmental policy making, but a major stumbling block was encountered over forests.

• No Convention was agreed, but an important document was developed, the Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests (the Forest Principles)

Behind the scenes negotiations

The failure to reach a consensus on a global forest convention in 1992 arose for a number of reasons. These included:• The strategic importance of forest resources• The desire amongst developing countries to ensure that

developed countries paid for the establishment of forest reserves

• A feeling amongst some countries that the position of developed nations had less credibility than was alleged

Behind the scenes negotiations

A particularly convincing argument that was put forward was that ITTO had developed guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in developing nations at a time when developed countries were still exploiting their virgin forest resources (especially the USA and Canada) with no international guidelines about these.

To “celebrate” UNCED, Grenada, a tropical country in the Caribbean, issued a stamp and minisheet featuring two controversial species (the Roosevelt elk and northern spotted owl) from the Pacific Northwest, where there were major concerns about the felling of old-growth forests.

CSCE Conference

In 1993, stung by comments that northern countries had failed to develop their own systems of sustainable forest management, a meeting was organized under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, an organization whose role had been severely undermined by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990. The venue was Montreal.

Montreal 1993

The meeting convened through the CSCE was termed a “Seminar of Experts on Sustainable Development of Temperate and Boreal Forests”. Delegates from North America, Europe and a number of other countries attended.It was divided into two main groups, one dealing with biophysical elements and one dealing with socio-economic-cultural elements of forest management.

Montreal 1993

By the end of the meeting, broad agreement had been reached on the idea that sustainable forest management (SFM) could be defined in terms of criteria and indicators.Broad agreement had also been reached on the biophysical criteria that constituted SFM, but there were sharp divisions over the approach that might be used to assess socio-economic and cultural aspects of forest management. This disagreement has persisted.

Montreal 1993

In establishing the criteria and indicators, the meeting took note of a number of documents, including:• The documents on SFM produced by the

International Tropical Timber Organization• Draft documents on ecosystem management

produced by the US Forest Service

Montreal 1993

Although European countries were present at the Montreal meeting (and in fact the biophysical discussions were led by Switzerland), Europe opted not to proceed with what became known as the Montreal Process. Instead, they decided to follow an initiative established under the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE).

MCPFE

The MCPFE had had its first meeting in Strasbourg, France in 1990, where it passed a number of resolutions. The next meeting was held in Helsinki in 1993, where a resolution (H1) was passed on “General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe”. This subsequently resulted in the development of a set of criteria and indicators , known as the Helsinki Process, although the name was later changed in a number of iterations following successive MCPFE meetings.

MCPFE

Resolution H1 of the Helsinki MCPFE stated:

The Signatory States and the European Community commit themselves to preparing, without delay, specific national or regional guidelines and to incorporating them into their forestry plans and programmes for the implementation of the above General Guidelines, in a manner consistent with the Statement of Forest Principles, and will collaborate in the further development of these General Guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe.

http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_helsinki_resolutionH1.pdf

MCPFE

You will note that there is no reference to criteria and indicators within this clause, and in fact there is no mention of criteria or indicators within Resolution H1.The European process only emerged after the Montreal meeting – at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in 2004, a core set of 6 criteria and 27 indicators were identified, and at a meeting in Antalya, Turkey in 1995, a set of 101 descriptive (policy) indicators was identified

MCPFE

At the 3rd MCPFE meeting, in Lisbon, Portugal in 1998, the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management were approved (Lisbon resolution L2). In 2002, the indicator set was adjusted to include 6 criteria, 35 quantitative and 17 qualitative (policy) indicators, a change that was endorsed at the 4th MCPFE in Vienna in 2003.

http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_lisbon_resolution_annex2.pdf

Forest Europe

Within the framework of the MCPFE, the Oslo Ministerial Decision: European Forests 2020 paragraph 24 b taken in 2011 states:

“Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting

Stressing the importance of adequate, accessible and evidence- based forest information at all levels of policy making, and for informing the broader public, FOREST EUROPE will further improve the basis for forest monitoring and harmonised reporting systems to serve emerging needs, including for verification of legality and sustainability”

Towards this end a common data collection with FAO’s Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) 2015 is being explored. This will allow improving and harmonizing data collection and will ensure consistent time series for the pan-European quantitative indicators.”

http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm-monitoring-and-reporting

Montreal Process

While the Europeans had been developing their own criteria and indicators, other temperate and boreal countries came together to develop a set of criteria and indicators in 1993 and 1994. This resulted in the Santiago Declaration, which recognized 7 criteria and 67 indicators. This was subsequently (in 2009) adjusted to 7 criteria and 54 indicators.

For the text of the Santiago Declaration, see: http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/santiago3_e.html

Membership of the Montreal Process

Argentina MexicoAustralia New ZealandCanada Republic of KoreaChile Russian FederationChina USAJapan Uruguay

Membership of the Montreal Process

• 83% of the world’s temperate and boreal forests• 49% of all the world’s forests• 33% of the world’s population• 45% of all world trade in wood and wood products

Other C& I Sets

A range of other regional processes were underway at the same time, many led by the regional offices of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). All parts of the world were covered, and some countries (such as Russia and China) took part in more than process.

Tarapoto Process

• Involves: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela

• Initiated in 1995• 12 criteria and 77 indicators of Amazon forest

sustainability• Reduced to 8 criteria and 15 indicators in 2001

Lepaterique Process

• Correctly known as the Lepaterique Central American Process on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

• Established in 1997• Involved Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama• 4 criteria and 40 indicators at the regional level,

8 criteria and 53 indicators at the national level

Dry-Zone Africa

• Correctly known as the Dry-Zone Africa Process on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

• Established in 1995• Involved 30 countries from Africa’s dry zone• 7 criteria and 47 indicators at the national

level

Dry Forests in Asia

• Correctly known as the Regional Initiative for the Development and Implementation of National Level Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia

• Established in 1999• Involved Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India,

Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand• 8 criteria and 49 indicators at the national level

Near East Process

• Established in 1996• Involved 30 countries in the Near East• 7 criteria and 65 indicators at the national and

regional levels

What is a criterion?

According to the FAO:“Criteria define the essential elements against which sustainability is assessed, with due consideration paid to the productive, protective and social roles of forests and forest ecosystems. Each criterion relates to a key element of sustainability, and may be described by one or more indicators.”http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/

What is an indicator?

According to the FAO:Indicators are parameters which can be measured and correspond to a particular criterion. They measure and help monitor the status and changes of forests in quantitative, qualitative and descriptive terms that reflect forest values as seen by those who defined each criterion.http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/

Montreal Process Criteria

1. Conservation of biological diversity2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water

resources5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple

socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies7. Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest

conservation and sustainable management

Montreal Process reporting

In theory, all countries should periodically report on each of the indicators for each criterion. The reports are often, but not always, called the State of the Forest Report for a particular country. An analysis of the Montreal process reports reveals wide discrepancies, with individual countries developing their own sets of criteria and indicators, and some moving away from the concept altogether.

Montreal Process reporting

Amongst the Montreal Process countries, some have done better than others. The reports for Australia, China, Japan and the USA are particularly informative.

Convergence of C&I

The large number of different C&I schemes, together with the existence of a global reporting system (the Forest Resources Assessment conducted every 5 years by the FAO) provides the opportunity for considerable streamlining. This is in fact happening, but slowly. In practice, despite periodic efforts to revive the concept, many countries have moved away from C&I, either because of the cost of monitoring and reporting, or because the results (including the lack of results) are politically embarrassing. This is not a criticism of C&I, rather an indication of the low priority that many governments give to forests.

Convergence of C&I

In particular, the intense data requirements of the international administration of REDD+ payments led to a joint statement by the Montréal Process, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Forest Europe, and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in November 2012 on the need for better coordination and harmonization in forest monitoring and reporting:

http://www.montrealprocess.org/documents/spotlights/SolutionForREDD+.pdf

Conclusions

• The Montreal Process was established to define criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management.

• Similar processes were set up elsewhere and there has been a proliferation of monitoring and reporting schemes

• The costs are high, and have led most governments to undertake incomplete assessments

• Increasing pressure to provide data for multiple purposes is leading to a rationalization of monitoring schemes, and a simplification of indicator lists