All current criteria and indicator processes make provision for conservation, maintenance or enhancement of genetic diversity, but they have taken a variety of approaches to the matter. Some take a broad view of genetic diversity and others take a rather more narrow view, confining attention to commercial tree species. The approach taken by each process is listed below, together with the other biological diversity indicators in an attempt to place them in the proper context. In many cases the indicators listed are not intended to be prescriptive, but meant as a guide to individual countries to develop indicators aligned with each country’s conditions and needs. The speed at which such development has taken place varies greatly among the countries concerned according to the resources available and the level of political commitment to sustainable forest management and to the particular process.
The member countries of the ATO are Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Cote-d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome et Principe and Tanzania. While the process commenced in 1993, its latest revision dates from 1998 (Anon, 1998a). One criterion, with four indicators that refer directly to biological diversity have been identified for testing, adoption and implementation in participating countries:
Criterion III.2. Negative impacts of various interventions on biodiversity are minimised.
III.2.1 Zones of biological protection where no interference is authorised are created in the permanent forest estate.
III.2.2 The size of biological reserves is adapted to suit the object of preservation.
III.2.3 Selection of biological preservation areas should take into account their potential for effective protection.
III.2.4 Special provisions for the protection of sensitive areas, plains, stream banks, steep slopes should be defined in the management plan.
II.2.5 The management plans of forest only provide for single-species or exotic species plantation when other types of silvicultural action have been considered by forest management experts and abandoned for justified reasons.
II.2.6 If enrichment plantings are carried out in logged-over forest, preference will be given to species that were actually harvested in the forest.
III.2.7 Rare and endangered species are protected.
III.2.8 Non timber forest products in high demand are the objects of conservation and domestication trials.
Some of these indicators are more in the nature of management guidelines and only the second last directly addresses genetic diversity. There is currently no indicator that attempts to monitor conservation of genetic diversity in forests where timber harvesting takes place.
The participating countries are Bhutan, China, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Bangladesh, Thailand, Sri Lanka and India. The following biological diversity indicators have been identified for testing and possible adoption:
Criterion 3: Maintenance and Enhancement of Biodiversity
Indicators
3.1 Extent of protected areas.
3.2 Number of threatened, keystone, flagship and endemic species of plants and animals.
3.3 List of flora and fauna
3.4 Degree of destructive harvest.
3.5 Percentage of cover by forest type and/or species.
3.6 Existence of mechanisms for the conservation of genetic resources.
In this case, the reference to genetic diversity is rather vague (Anon, 1999b). Given the magnitude of the problems facing forests in the countries concerned, and the variety of conditions they face, it is difficult, in a national level indicator, to be more specific at this stage. Since the mechanisms are likely to be at an early stage of development in participating countries, it would be unrealistic to expect more at this time.
Up till now, action has been relatively slow in testing, adopting and implementing these indicators in participating countries, with the exception of India, although it should be noted that this is the “youngest” of the processes under way. There is heavy reliance of external assistance to promote the criteria and indicator concept in most, if not all the countries involved (Ram Prasad and Kotwal, 2001). With this process, only India has developed a sub-national level indicator system - the Bhopal-India Process - and has commenced field testing (see below).
This Process covers a total of 30 countries ranging from South Africa to Mauritania (Anon, 1999c). The following biological diversity indicators have been identified for testing, adoption and implementation in participating countries:
Criterion 2: Conservation and Enhancement of Biological Diversity in Forest Ecosystems
Indicators
2a. Ecosystem indicators
1. Areas by types of vegetation (natural and man-made).
2. Extent of protected areas.
3. Fragmentation of forests.
4. Area cleared annually of forest ecosystems containing endemic species.
2b. Species indicators
5. Number of forest-dependent species.
6. Number of forest-dependent species at risk.
7. Number of forest-dependent species that have disappeared.
8. Number of species that have reappeared.
2c. Genetic indicators
9. Average number of provenances.
10. Number of forest-dependant species with reduced range.
11. Population of key species across their range.
12. Management of genetic resources.
In the Africa Dry Zone Process the genetic indicators are focused on quantitative measures of several key aspects of biological diversity in forests in that ecological zone, together with a requirement for active management of forest genetic resources. In the latter case, the large variation in approach likely to be required across dry forests in the continent makes it necessary to have a very general indicator at this level. There appears to be no recent development-related work in this Process specific to the genetic diversity issue, apart from support by CIFOR to some countries in Africa to further review the implementation of criteria and indicators at the FMU level. However, the work supported by CIFOR is not directly linked to the Africa Dry Zone Process.
The second revision of criteria and indicators from ITTO was published in 1998 (Anon, 1998a), and is intended to be applied at both national and FMU levels. It contains specifications for conservation of biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels, supported by a set of forest management guidelines as follows:
Criterion 5: Biological Diversity
Indicators
Ecosystem Diversity
5.1 Statistics of protected areas in each forest type
-number + and -
-extent + and -
-percentage of forest type covered + and -
-range of sizes and average size of protected area + and -
-percentage of boundaries demarcated or clearly defined + and -
5.2 Percentage of total number of protected areas connected by biological corridors or “stepping stones” between them.
Species Diversity
5.3 Existence and implementation of procedures to identify endangered, rare and threatened species of forest flora and fauna.
5.4 Number of endangered, rare and threatened forest-dependent species.
5.5 Percentage of original range occupied be selected endangered, rare and threatened species.
Genetic Diversity
5.6 Existence and implementation of a strategy for in situ and/or ex situ conservation of the genetic variation within commercial, endangered, rare and threatened species of forest flora and fauna.
This genetic diversity indicator defined by ITTO is a pragmatic first stage indicator, focusing attention on commercial species and those species considered rare and under threat. The inference is that if these species are being adequately managed, the overall biological diversity situation will be similar, and therefore forest management is sustainable from the biological diversity aspect. However, this is not necessarily the case, since the indicator says nothing about either relatively common species or little-known taxa. This is, on the other hand, a problem common most genetic diversity indicators so far identified.
According to the ITTO Secretariat, no further development of genetic diversity indicators has taken place since the publication of the above indicators and guidelines.
The Lepaterique Process is a cooperative effort by Central American countries (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama) and contains quantitative biological diversity indicators which apply at the national and management unit level (see Section 2.2 for the latter). The following biological diversity indicators have been identified for testing, adoption and implementation by the participating countries (Anon, 1997):
Criterion 2: Conservation and Maintenance of Environmental Services Provided by Forest Ecosystems
Indicators
1. Total forest cover in relation to area of forest in and outside protected areas and change in land use.
2. Area of forest under management.
3. Percentage and area of various forest types in the Protected Area Network of the Region.
4. Area and length of the Biological Corridor.
10. Number of endemic, threatened and/or endangered species.
12. Number of forest species conserved ex-situ (e.g. in seed banks).
In this case genetic diversity is not addressed directly and only weak inferences about it could be drawn from the other indicators.
The Montreal Process for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests includes 12 countries: Canada, USA, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Uruguay, Argentina, Russia, China, Korea, Mexico and Japan (Anon, 1995a). These countries have identified the following biological diversity indicators for testing, adoption and implementation:
Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity
Indicators
Ecosystem Diversity
a. Extent of area for forest type relative to total forest area.
b. Extent of area by forest type and age class or successional stage.
c. Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other classification.
d. Extent of area by forest type in protected area defined by age class or successional stage.
e. Fragmentation of forest types.
Species Diversity
a. The number of forest-dependent species.
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.
Genetic Diversity
a. Number of forest-dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range.
b. Population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their range.
Without exception, countries participating in the Montreal Process have had difficulty in implementing the two genetic diversity indicators, but a considerable amount of work has been carried out to find workable approaches to the issue (see Section 3)
The Pan-European Process, covering 41 countries ranging from Iceland to the Russian Federation and south to Turkey, published its set of criteria and indicators in 1994 (Anon, 1995b) and has since been undertaking a program of testing and refinement of all indicators. Overall, the Pan-European indicators are more detailed and complex than in most other Processes, and are a mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches. They are applied to both national level and FMU level. For convenience, both are listed below:
Criterion 4: Maintenance, Conservation and Appropriate Enhancement of Biological Diversity in Forest Ecosystems
The complete set of indicators is not reproduced here for reasons of space, but can be found in Anon, 1995, or on the website www.minconf-forests.net.
While at first sight they may seem complex, the Pan-European indicators are arranged for clarity in four distinct, but related, “concept areas”:
general conditions,
representative, rare and vulnerable forest ecosystems,
threatened species, and
biological diversity in production forests.
Each concept area has one or more quantitative indicators, together with a set of descriptive (qualitative) indicators. The latter are generally similar across all the concept areas and refer to the existence of crosscutting issues of legal frameworks, institutional capacity, economic policy and information resources. This is a very detailed approach, reflecting the variety of forest situations in countries in Europe. Essentially assessment and monitoring relies on data that is (or should be) available in standard forest inventories and uses these to build up a picture of the extent to which forest biological diversity is maintained. Direct links are made to the parallel efforts within the Ministerial process “Environment for Europe” and the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy developed within its framework.
Genetic diversity is specifically mentioned twice:
2. Existence and capacity of an institutional framework to:
- maintain, conserve and appropriately enhance biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels.
4.3 Changes in the proportions of stands managed for the conservation and utilization of forest genetic resources (gene reserve forests, seed collection stands, etc).
The latter has been slightly amended in a recent proposal for further development of the Pan-European Process indicators as follows (S. Linser, MCPFE, Vienna, pers.comm.):
“Area managed for conservation and utilization of forest tree genetic resources (in situ and ex situ gene conservation) and area managed for seed production.”
Again, the emphasis in conservation of genetic diversity is on the tree component of forest ecosystems and there is no requirement for direct measurement of genetic diversity. However, taken in the context of the “concept areas” outlined above, the Pan-European Process appears to have the most effective and comprehensive approach to indicators of forest biological diversity. Whether this is sufficient to be able to make statements about sustainability has yet to be determined.
The Tarapoto Proposals are aimed at improved management of the Amazonian forest by the signatory countries of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty: Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela (Anon, 1995c). Indicators have been proposed for use at both the national and FMU levels (see Section 2.2). Again, a qualitative approach is taken to the issue of genetic diversity:
Criterion 4: Conservation of Forest Cover and of Biological Diversity
Indicators
a. Area, by forest type, in categories of protected areas, in relation to total forest area.
b. Measures for in situ conservation of species in danger of extinction.
c. Measures for the conservation of genetic resources.
There has been no further development of the genetic indicators. The attention of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty partners is currently directed at the implementation of indicators which are relatively easy to apply and which are therefore more likely to be actively assessed and monitored at the present time (Castello, pers. comm.).
This Process, which is being sponsored by FAO and UNEP, comprises 30 countries extending roughly from Morocco to Pakistan (FAO, 1999). The Process has identified the following biological diversity indicators for testing, adoption and implementation:
Criterion 2: Conservation of Biological Diversity in Forest Areas
Genetic Indicators
9. Existence of the number of seed provenances.
10. Number of forest-dependent species with reduced range.
11. Population levels of key species across their range.
There are no further recent developments in the Near East process in respect of genetic diversity indicators.
CIFOR, which is one of the research centres operating within the framework of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, has been very active in the development of indicators of genetic diversity, with a primary focus on tropical forests and the FMU level. The biological diversity indicators listed below are the result of an extensive developmental phase from 1995 to about 1998 (CIFOR, 1999).
Criterion 2.3: Conservation of the processes that maintain genetic variation
Indicator: Levels of genetic diversity are maintained within critical limits
Demographic verifiers
1. Census number of sexually mature individuals is above critical absolute values.
2. Census number of reproducing individuals is above critical absolute values.
3. Coefficient of phenotypic variation is higher or not significantly different from a reference population.
Genetic verifiers
4. Number of alleles is maintained.
5. Gene diversity is maintained.
6. Genetic variation is maintained.
Indicator: There is no directional change in genotypic frequencies.
Demographic verifiers
1. Phenotypic shifts show no significant change.
2. Age/size classes show no significant change.
3. Environmental shifts show no significant change.
Genetic verifiers
4. Genotypic frequency shifts show no significant change.
5. Marker frequency shifts show no significant change.
6. Genetic mean shifts show no significant change.
Indicator: There are no changes in gene flow/migration
Demographic verifiers
1. Physical isolation shows no significant change.
2. Mating isolation shows no significant change
3. Seed dispersal shows no significant change.
4. Pollen dispersal shows no significant change.
Genetic verifiers
5. Gene flow shows no significant change.
Indicator: There are no changes in the mating system
Demographic verifiers
1. Parental pool size shows no significant change.
2. Seed germination shows no significant change.
3. Pollinator abundance is maintained.
4. Sex ratio is maintained.
Genetic verifiers
5. Out-crossing rate shows no significant change.
6. Correlated mating shows no significant change.
While the indicators and verifiers developed under the coordination of CIFOR are comprehensive and scientifically elegant, they demand the collection of a vast amount of very detailed data. These data would certainly provide a very comprehensive picture of the state of forest genetic biological diversity, if we knew how to undertake their collection and had the resources to do so. It is clearly not possible to implement them at this stage, however, they do provide a good framework for further research.[1]
Within the Montreal Process, Canada, the USA and Australia have undertaken the development of sub-national level indicators, and each country has addressed the issue of genetic diversity.
The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers published a set of criteria and indicators in 1995 intended to be applied in the Canadian provinces. The genetic diversity indicator is a qualitative one:
Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity
Indicator 1.3.1 Implementation of an in situ/ex situ genetic conservation strategy for commercial and endangered forest vegetation species.
In this instance the indicator does not attempt to address the genetic conservation of all aspects of forest biodiversity, but focuses on commercial and endangered forest species.
There is an assumption that if these components are managed satisfactorily, then the remaining components should be maintained as well. Again, the need for further research is indicated to confirm that this is the case.
Recent developmental work (McAfee, pers. comm.) has identified three new FMU level indicators of genetic diversity that are being tested:
1. Population sizes and reproductive success are adequate to maintain levels of genetic diversity.
2. Use of scientifically-based seed transfer rules and seed orchard zones in planting native species.
3. Harvesting does not significantly change gene frequencies.
The first of these requires sufficient inventory data and research information for a particular forest type to support any judgement about trends in genetic diversity. The second is relatively easily implementable, but the third would require monitoring by some biochemical technique (see Section 3).
The US Forest Service reported in April, 2002, on the results of a very comprehensive study examining the requirements for sustainability monitoring at the FMU scale (Wright et al, 2002). Called the Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development Test (LUCID), the study examined a wide range of issues affecting the identification and implementation of the whole range of indicators, and did so on eight separate National Forests covering a range of ecological conditions. While generic indicators were derived for each criterion, it was found necessary to define specific measures to assess the indicator for each different National Forest area. In LUCID, the genetic diversity indicators were grouped under a criterion called Organism Function, and the indicators were:
12.7.1 Genetic mixing (recommended measure - assessment of the existence and use of native and non-native stock rules)
12.7.2 Genetic migration (recommended measures - assessment of migration barriers and persistence of species at the edge of their range)
12.7.3 Genetic selection (recommended measure - assessment of the alteration of native species gene pools)
In a separate criterion, Organism Structure/Composition, there is one indicator, genetic diversity, with recommended measures being the assessment of the area converted to non-native gene pool and allele and genotype frequencies for selected species.
As the title of the study implies, this is a developmental and evaluation process, so the indicators have not yet been formally adopted. The results from this process could provide very useful leads for practical indicators of genetic diversity at the FMU level.
Australia has chosen to develop the national level Montreal Process criteria and indicators for use at sub-national level, deleting national level indicators not thought to be applicable at the FMU or State level, and adding others more specific to conditions in Australia (Anon, 1998b).
Criterion 1 Conservation of Biological Diversity
Indicator 1.3 Genetic Diversity
1.3.a Amount of genetic variation within and between populations of representative forest dwelling species.
1.3.c Extent of native forest and plantations of indigenous species which have genetic resource conservation plans prepared and implemented.
The addition of the second indicator is a reflection of the importance of forest plantation species in the Australian context. It is a useful step towards a holistic approach to maintenance of genetic diversity and recognizes that the actions required will vary from one natural forest type to another, and from one forest plantation species to another. However, the need for genetic resource conservation plans is not extended to important exotic plantation species, which is a weakness, given the reliance placed on these species for timber production. There has been no further development in this area since the present sub-national indicators were drafted in 1998.
The Bhopal-India Process has developed a sub-national set of criteria and indicators in cooperation with ITTO, aligned to the specific forest conditions in India (Anon, 2002a). At the present time the application of the indicators is confined to a pilot area in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, in central India. They include:
Criterion 2: Maintenance, Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity
Indicators
2.1 Area of protected ecosystems.
2.2 Area of fragmented ecosystems.
2.3 Number of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species.
2.4 Level of species richness and biodiversity in selected areas.
2.5 Availability of medicinal and aromatic plants in various forest types.
2.6 Status of non-destructive harvest of NWFP.
2.7 Number of keystone and flagship species in various forest types.
The intention here is to test some quantitative indicators, which is a marked departure from the qualitative ITTO and Dry Forests Asia approach. However, all the indicators are indirect measures of genetic diversity.
The following biological diversity indicators have been identified at the forest management unit level:
Criterion 10: Conservation of Forest Ecosystems
Indicators
a. Proportion of area of permanent production in areas of environmental protection.
b. Measures to protect, recuperate and sustainably use wild populations of species in danger of extinction.
The indicators in this case are not direct measures of genetic diversity, but indirect measures that have clear implications for genetic diversity conservation. They are also flexible in that the precise actions taken will vary from one FMU to another. However, the same difficulty noted in regard to the ITTO indicators applies also to these, in that there is an assumption that areas of environmental protection are truly representative of undisturbed and still-operating natural processes, and that the measures employed to ensure sustainable use are not causing a negative change in the genetic base of the target species. There is also the underlying assumption that the condition of the species in danger of extinction will reflect the condition of other species in the forest ecosystem.
The following biological diversity indicators have been developed for use at the FMU level:
Criterion 5: Biological Diversity in Forest Ecosystems
Indicators
1. Percentage and area of forest types in the various categories of protected areas
2. Number of endemic threatened or endangered species
3. Estimates of wildlife species dependent on forest habitats
4. Area and length of Biological Corridors per forest ecosystem
5. Area and percentage of primary and secondary forests and of plantations
6. Number of species conserved ex situ (e.g. in seed banks)
Compared with the national level indicators, three indicators are much the same, but three others are more clearly focused on local conditions. However, all are indirect surrogates for genetic diversity and the need for further research and development is apparent.
At the sub-national/FMU level, one might expect that genetic diversity indicators would be quite narrowly defined, but a review of the indicators outlined above will show that such is not usually the case. Some indicators are still quite vague, so that their effectiveness is doubtful. Some quantitative indicators are more specific, but as yet lack evidence of having a sound scientific basis. However, there is some useful developmental work in progress that may advance the search for practical indicators.
The scope of such genetic diversity indicators that do exist is often very narrow, referring only, or mainly, to natural forests. They do not cater adequately for planted forests or the increasingly important area of trees grown in agroforestry systems outside forests. A more holistic approach is necessary before we can have any confidence that the assessment of the sustainability of genetic biological diversity, even of the tree component of forests, is assured.
It cannot be said that, at this stage of their development, any criteria and indicator system adequately addresses the assessment and monitoring of forest genetic diversity. Existing efforts focus on rare and threatened species and on the tree component of forests. We simply lack effective ways of encapsulating genetic diversity in some relatively simple fashion. Also of concern is that, apart from a few instances, most criteria and indicator processes are not now actively continuing to develop their genetic indicators, possibly due to the scientific and data collection problems they have encountered.
The most practical approach to an effective indicator of genetic diversity within the overall framework of processes for the criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management appears to be through a specific strategy for genetic conservation. A quick scan of the literature indicates that there are few forest management plans that specifically target genetic diversity (although there may be examples in the “grey” literature not accessible to the author). It is this area that is likely to be the most useful focus for future development in the context of sustainable forest management.
|
[1] Work on indicators of
genetic variation originally carried out by CIFOR has recently been further
developed in collaboration with FAO-see FAO 2002. |
