WHY NATIONAL AND FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF DRY FORESTS IN ASIA? - Froylan Castañeda

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

INTRODUCTION

Following the UNCED Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was given the lead role, among UN Agencies, to promote and coordinate international activities towards the identification, development and implementation of national-level criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, in all various regions of the world. FAO carries out this work within the overall framework of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests¹ (IPF) and the UN Inter-Agency Task Force for Forests (ITFF).

¹ The mandate of IPF expired in March 1997 and a follow-up mechanism, the Inter-Governmental Forum on Forests, IFF, has been put into place by countries.

In the above capacity, FAO has closely followed and supported ongoing international criteria and indicators initiatives in this field, including the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Pan-European Forest Process (previously known as the Helsinki Process), Montreal Process, Tarapoto Proposal, Dry Zone Africa, Near East Processes and the Lepaterique Process of Central America, and has helped facilitate contacts among them. In accordance with the FAO/ITTO Meeting on Harmonization of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (13 - 16 February 1995, Rome), attention has been paid to identifying similarities and differences among these national-level processes which are aimed at monitoring the effects of forest management interventions, and trends over time.

In addition, FAO considers that there is a need to ensure appropriate linkages between internationally agreed criteria and indicators at the national level on the one hand, and criteria and indicators at the forest management unit², or working, level on the other; and the testing and implementation of the latter ones.

² A “forest management unit” is a well defined and demarcated land area, predominantly covered by forests, managed on a long-tern basis and having a set of clear objectives specified in a forest management plan.

FAO’S OBJECTIVES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DRY FORESTS IN ASIA

The main objectives of FAO’s role and support for the development and implementation of national-level criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of dry forests in Asia are as follows:

· Assist countries in selecting a set of national-level criteria and indicators for the management of dry forests in accordance to the region’s social, environmental, ecological and economic conditions, and to assist regional countries to start the implementation of such tools.

· Inform and make countries aware of other international initiatives on criteria and indicators and to facilitate dialogue among them, including exchange of information.

· Support countries in their efforts to chose and clarify methods of measurement or assessment of corresponding indicators (how and when to measure or assess and the responsibilities implied in these activities).

· Assist countries in measuring and monitoring progress towards sustainable management of all kinds of forests and reporting needs at national, regional and international levels.

· Assist countries in securing outside assistance (including technical and financial support) for national implementation.

WHY CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR DRY FORESTS IN ASIA?

More than 150 countries are currently actively participating in one or more of the several ongoing international initiatives for the development and implementation of eco-regional, national and management unit-levels criteria and indicators (Annexes 3 and 4). These initiatives cover mostly humid tropical, boreal and temperate forests, although there are also some focusing on dry forests, mainly in Africa and the Near East. They include, for example, the Dry Zone Africa Process, the Near East Process, and the South African Development Community (SADC) Initiative Within the Framework of the Dry Zone Africa Process and the UNEP/FAO/CILSS (Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel) Initiative, also within the framework of the Dry Zone Africa Process.

Although some of the Asian countries participate in other ongoing international initiatives which deal with humid tropical, boreal and temperate forests, they also have considerable large areas of dry forests. Criteria and indicators specific for dry forests in Asia have yet to be developed and implemented although indicators from other initiatives, such as the ones of ITTO and the Bhopal-India Initiative, could potentially be useful in monitoring sustainability of forest management activities in the ecosystems in the region. It is perceived that the criteria and indicators for Asian dry forests will partially be derived from those previously developed by ITTO, the Indian Institute of Forest Management Workshop of January 1999 and those already developed for other dry regions of the world, notably Dry Zone Africa, SADC and Near East.

GLOBALLY AGREED-UPON ELEMENTS OF CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT · Extent of Forest Resources · Biological Diversity · Forest Health and Vitality · Productive Functions of Forests · Protective Functions of Forests · Socio-economic Benefits and Needs · Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework

In developing criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of dry forests in this region, it is important to bear in mind results of considerable discussions and debate during past meetings of the ongoing international initiatives dealing with the identification of such tools. Definitions of the corresponding indicators have indicated that it may be possible to develop a globally agreed-upon core set of national-level criteria, centered around seven fundamental elements by which sustainable forest management can be, and have been, independently defined in all ongoing international processes.

Most sets of criteria developed for national application seem to be fully applicable locally, but the case may not necessarily apply for all indicators. National indicator schemes will have a greater dependency on local schemes than vice-versa.

CURRENT STATUS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES³

³ More details on the activities of other ongoing international initiatives, including a summary of their most recent achievements, on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, can be found in Annexes 3 and 4.

ITTO has developed a set of criteria and indicators applicable to the natural tropical forests in this region, but these were initially meant to be applicable mainly to humid tropical forests. Consequently, there is a perceived need at national and regional levels to review available criteria and indicators developed for dry zone forests with a view to adapting these for implementation by countries in Asia in a manner compatible with local conditions and circumstances.

India has a history of dealing with the issue of criteria and indicators which dates back to June 1994, i.e. the “Indo-British Forestry Initiative.” The objective of the “initiative” was to help develop “formats” and indicators for reporting to the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 1995 on post-UNCED forestry activities. On 25 - 27 July 1994, the Governments of India and the United Kingdom, in cooperation with FAO, sponsored a workshop in New Delhi entitled “Towards Sustainable Forestry: Preparing for CSD 1995.” The objectives of the workshop were to develop recommended formats for reporting to the CSD in 1995 on forestry issues, as well as indicators for assessing progress in implementing the Forest Principles and forestry-related aspects of Agenda 21.

However, it turned out that the Delhi workshop focused mostly on the format of reporting progress in implementing UNCED agreements in forestry to the 1995 CSD session. Consequently, the “indicators” of progress were then perceived more in terms of “progress makers”. The Delhi workshop did not discuss the issue of criteria and indicators as perceived today in ongoing international processes as it was considered then that other groups were dealing with this issue. Meanwhile India has been active on the issue of criteria and indicators as part of ITTO activities and as a collaborator with research organizations, such as the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

It was not until January 1999 that a “preliminary” set of 8 national-level criteria and 47 indictors for sustainable forest management was developed for India during a workshop held in Bhopal, India (21 - 23 January 1999) (Prasad, R. et al., 1999). Since then, this set has slightly been modified and the number of criteria and indicators is now officially 8 and 51, respectively. Based on the national-level set, India is proposing a set for forest management unit level consisting of 8 criteria and 59 indicators.

No documented records of past nation-wide involvement with criteria and indicators are available from the other participating countries in this workshop (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and China) despite their active participation in international meetings.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

“Criteria” define the essential components of and/or the range of forest values to be addressed in sustainable forest management. “Indicators” are ways to measure or describe a criterion; they gauge specific attributes or forest values of each criterion. Thus indicators can be mainly quantitative but also descriptive or qualitative. An indicator of a given criterion defines what the latter is and what it means. Together they constitute a useful tool in decision-making at any level for assessing progress towards sustainable forest management and for monitoring trends towards sustainability over time in forest.

Indicators should have the following characteristics:

Clarity:	they should be well defined, scientifically sound and easy to understand at all political, technical and public levels.
Flexibility:	they should be applicable to all types of forests in the country.
Feasibility:	preferably, they should be based on readily available data/or they should be easily measurable by available techniques.
Applicability:	they should be practical and not require excessive administrative workloads, and be cost-effective.
Limitations:	the number of indicators selected should be within the country’s limitations.
Compatibility:	consider other processes as examples only and not to totally imitate what there are doing.
Adaptability:	they should be adaptable to the country’s prevailing social, economic, political and environmental conditions.

Reviewing the sets of criteria and indicators of the various international processes, one can make some observations (FAO, 1997):

· Most processes have “standard indicators,” meaning indicators that appear in most cases and that deal mainly with (a) assessment of resources, i.e. those relating to the state and changes of national forest resources, (b) socio-economic functions, i.e. value of wood and non-wood forest products, share of forest sector in the GNP, and (c) legal and institutional framework, i.e. national forest policy and regulation.

· Likewise, most have “particular indicators,” that is those dealing with national problems such as fuelwood and demographic pressures, i.e. average fuelwood consumption per capita per year and forest area by ownership types.

· One will also find “difficult-to-use indicators.” These are indicators that are listed but that cannot be assessed because the information is not currently available in the country, or can not be measured because of country’s present lack of technology and knowledge. Examples of these may include, in some countries, the following: area affected by insects and diseases, change in the balance of nutritional elements and soil acidity, and number of tree species with a reduced distribution area.

IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL-LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

National-level criteria and indicators were driven by the commitment and need for countries to report on progress towards sustainable forest management over time within the framework of international non-legally binding agreements.

These criteria and indicators are meant to help guide countrywide policies, regulations and legislation. They are intended to help countries monitor and report on overall trends over time in forest management and its quality. Positive trends in sustainability will be demonstrated by an aggregate in trends of the identified criteria, that is, the trends in all criteria must show a positive development over time. Based on information on status and trends at the national level and on subsequent forecasts for the future, policy and decision-making can be rationalized and improved. The ultimate aim of the process is to promote improved forest management practices over time, and to further the development of a gradually healthier and more productive forest estate, which can meet the social, economic and environmental needs of countries concerned.

The national implementation of regional/eco-regional strategies guided by internationally developed criteria and indicators, requires review of the relevance of defined criteria to the national situation and their adoption, in principle, by all concerned parties. Countries should also review and test the practical possibilities to measure and monitor specified national-level indicators, and assess and reconfirm the relevance of these to prevailing environmental, economic, social and institutional realities.

Success in implementing criteria and indicators at this level depends on much more than just pure technical knowledge. It takes strong and decisive political support and commitment from government and notably from the national forestry authorities. The Pan-European Forest Process, the Tarapoto Proposal and the Lepaterique Process of Central America are very good examples where national forestry authorities are very much involved in the process offering needed support. Furthermore success requires that individual countries review and test the indicators at the field level to reconfirm their relevance.

Implementation at this level does not come without problems. Results from a test including 31 of the 38 participating countries in the Pan-European Forest Process showed that there were difficulties at the national level to implement and report on six of the 27 indicators. This problem would make it harder to compare advances towards the achievement sustainable forest management among participating countries (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, 1996). Some reasons given included variations among the countries in (a) the reference years and timing intervals of data collection, (b) the definitions used that are applicable to national inventories and statistics and, (c) the classification of some the indicators (Veltheim, 1996). Indicators pertaining to the criterion “maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality” were considered more troublesome to measure. The Montreal Process also faced similar problems in the implementation of criteria and indicators.

Since criteria, in essence, define what sustainable forest management means, national-level criteria and indicators can help stimulate and assist in the identification of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level. The criteria and indicators identified at these two levels, while different in purpose and scope, should be mutually compatible. Not all national-level criteria and indicators apply, as such, to the forest management unit level. Indicators at this level are more site-specific, depending on various local conditions and priorities.

FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT-LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS

FAO’s work and involvement have largely concentrated on assistance to countries at the regional and national levels. However, within the frameworks of the “Tarapoto Proposal for Criteria and Indicators for Sustainability of the Amazon Forest” and the “Central American Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management,” (which FAO helped organize jointly with the Amazon Conservation Treaty Secretariat and the Government of The Netherlands and the Central American Commission on Development (CCAD), respectively), countries manifested their interest in developing criteria and indicators also for the forest management unit level, within the established common, regional and sub-regional frameworks. The Pan-European Forest Process has also recently embarked on elaborating “Guidelines” for management at the forest unit level. It is expected that the Montreal Process will also start implementation at this level.

National-level sets of criteria and indicators for various regions of the world should be complemented by the development and implementation of sets of criteria and indicators defined for the forest management unit level. Many of the ongoing processes have (also as described before), in fact, developed forest management unit-level criteria and indicators in addition to the national-level ones. Due to a wide range of social, economic, environmental and geographical conditions in the countries involved, results from these latter efforts differ widely.

Forest management unit-level criteria and indicators were from the beginning, in principle, a sort of an “extension” to the national-level concept. While acknowledging that these two levels would need different, albeit partly overlapping indicators, the idea was still very clear based on a time series, and monitoring activity. In fact, early documents stressed - and still do - this issue mentioning that there is a need for linkages between the two levels to the extent that these two should be mutually consistent.

Countries for which trade in forest products is economically important, are likely to be increasingly involved in forest products certification which indirectly calls for better and more efficient forest management. Certification and the associated issue of labeling are today among the most topical and controversial subjects in forestry. The former seeks to link trade, particularly international trade in forest products, to the sustainable management of the forest resource, and to enable those who so wish to purchase products coming from allegedly “sustainably managed forests” (FAO Information Notes).

Definition of criteria and indicators for their application at the national (aggregated over the forest estate) and the forest management unit (the individual forest area) levels, may contribute directly to improving forest management practices. However, definition and implementation of forest management unit-level criteria and indicators can potentially also contribute to clarifying issues related to environment and trade in forest products, including forest products certification. While criteria and indicators provide a means to measure, assess and demonstrate progress in sustainability of forest management activities in a given country or in a specified forest area over time, certification is a means to certify the achievement of certain, pre-defined standards of forest management in a forest area, at a given point in time, agreed upon between producers and consumers.

Internationally agreed indicators of sustainable forest management at the forest management unit level, can contribute directly to improving forest management practices in the field and in specific forests. Certification indirectly aims at improving the management of forests and more directly to provide market access for the products from such forests. The basis for forest product certification is “standards,” through which agreed-upon, minimum levels of performance in forest management are defined. The purpose of these standards is to assist users and consumers to identify those products which come from a forest with “good forest management” practices, as judged by conformity to these common performance standards, and thus to provide an incentive for good management to owners and management of the resources through ensuring better access to markets. While assessment results from criteria and indicators work cannot be compared from one country to another, the specified performance standards used for certification purposes are, by definition, comparable among countries.

While there are linkages between national and forest management unit-level criteria and indicators, there may, or may not, be linkages between the latter ones on the one hand, and forest products certification standards on the other. Direct linkages do not exist between national-level criteria and indicators and certification.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL-LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS

The Work of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests

FAO has been involved and instrumental in catalyzing and assisting to pursue a number of international, regional and eco-regional initiatives on criteria and indicators in accordance with its mandate and priorities. This is also in line with the Organization’s role as Task Manager for Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 of UNCED, “Combating Deforestation,” and focal point for this issue among UN Agencies in the work of the IPF of the Commission on Sustainable Development. Furthermore, through a series of deliberations, mainly focusing on technology transfer⁴, the IPF has been able to establish the need to adapt forestry action programs in the context of diverse social, economic, environmental and political conditions.

⁴ “Technology transfer” related to criteria and indicators in support of sustainable forest management in this context is referred to as seen by the IPF. It encompasses techniques as well as methods, technical knowledge and information sharing and therefore it is component of a wide range of programmes and projects at various levels from research and scientific information to technical cooperation and extension.

National forest programs (NFPs) are long-term iterative processes meant to help countries to continuously improve their policies and strategies and to formulate, implement, monitor and evaluate forestry and forestry related action plans and programs for the achievement of sustainable forest management the national and sub-national levels. These programs, which are carried out by countries in collaboration with FAO, help them to determine and define objectives and strategies for implementation of forestry programs in which all concerned actors participate. At the operational level, the process of the NFPs consists of four phases⁵: (1) organization and identification of actors in the forestry sector and elaboration of a communication strategy, (2) strategic planning based on studies of current situation and analysis of scenarios, (3) implementation including detailed formulation of investment programs and projects including assisting countries in fund raising for projects, and (4) revision, evaluation and updating of activities and basic strategies.

⁵ Details can be found in FAO, 1996a.

The IPF has recognized the importance of NFPs as comprehensive forest policy frameworks to achieve sustainable forest management. As a result, it has made nine proposals to help countries strengthen their NFPs:

· Develop, implement, monitor and evaluate NFPs;

· Integrate criteria and indicators into the overall process;

· Include capacity building as an objective of NFPs;

· Involve indigenous people and local communities in decision-making;

· Develop, test and implement participatory mechanisms to integrate continuous multidisciplinary research in planning cycle;

· Establish sound national coordination mechanisms;

· Use NFPs as a basis for international cooperation; and

· Further develop the concept and practice of partnership, and for international and bilateral agencies to ensure adequate provision of overseas development aid (ODA).

Program Elements of the IPF in Direct Support of Sustainable Forest Management

One of the results of the final, 4th Session of the IPF (June 1997), was a proposed plan of action, drafted by ITFF. The proposed plan has a goal to help support the implementation of the IPF’s proposals for action through well executed and coordinated activities by ITFF members in association with other international organizations, multilateral agencies and instruments. The plan which addresses needs at the regional and international levels recognizes opportunities for participation by other potential partners such as governments, NGOs and other international organizations, for a more effective response to IPF’s proposal for action.

Six of the most relevant “Program Elements” of the IPF plan in direct support of sustainable forest management (IPF/ITFF, 1997) and which specifically refer to criteria and indicators in the framework of technology transfer and capacity building are (see also Tables 1 and 2 which show UN and non-UN collaborating agencies and their degree of involvement⁶):

⁶ For details on how each Programme Element refers to criteria and indicators, see: Castañeda, 1998.

· Program Element I.1: “Progress through National Forest and Land-use Program”

· Program Element I.4.2: “Impact of Air-borne Pollution on Forests”

· Program Element II: “International Cooperation in Financial Assistance and Technology Transfer”

· Program Element III.1 (a): “Assessment of the Multiple Benefits of All Types of Forests”

· Program Element III.2: “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management”

· Program Element IV: “Trade and Environment In Relation To Forest Products and Services”

The IPF recognized that this issue of criteria and indicators is a key Program Element in support of programs by which countries can achieve sustainable development. In this respect, the IPF recommends that countries develop and implement such tools. Given the widespread international interest in the subject of criteria and indicators, the IPF has made six proposals including the following:

· Prepare and implement national-level criteria and indicators;

· Use internationally, and nationally-agreed criteria and indicators as a framework for advancing best forest practices, and promote their compatibility at all levels; and

· Encourage efforts by countries and international organizations to achieve a common international understanding on concepts and definitions related to criteria and indicators, on mutual recognition among sets of criteria and indicators, and on transparent methods for measurement and dissemination.

Other United Nations Agencies Involved

In addition to FAO, the other UN bodies involved in follow-up to the recommendations of the IPF are listed Table 1. These agencies also promote sustainable forest management by undertaking, for example, surveys and collecting, analyzing and disseminating data which have incidences applicable to measuring and monitoring sustainable forest management. The activities of the ad hoc ITFF, which supports the work of the IPF and helps to strengthen and streamline concerted action by international agencies, will continue in support of the work of the Inter-Governmental Forum on Forests (IFF).

Table 1: Some United Nations Agencies and Convention Secretariats Promoting, Supporting and Assisting Countries in the Development and Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

Major United Nations Partners7	Programme Elements
	I.1: Progress through national forests and land-use programs	I.4.2: Impact of air-borne pollution of forests	II: International cooperation in financial assistance and technology transfer for sustainable forest management	III.1(a)/1: Assessment of the multiple benefits of all types of forests	III.2: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management	IV. Trade and environment relating to forest goods and services
FAO	F8	F	X	F	F	X
UNDP	X	-	F	-	X	-
UNEP	X	X	X	X	X	X
UNESCO	-	-	-	-	X	-
WBG	X	-	X	-	X	-
UNIDO	X	-	-	-	-	-
UN/CTAD	-	-	-	-	-	X
UN/ECE	-	-	-	X	-	-
CCD	X	-	-	-	-	-
CBC	X	X	-	-	X	-
CCC	-	X	-	-	-	-
FACILITATOR						(ITTO)

⁷ FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; UNDP: UN Development Programmeme; UNEP: UN Environment Programmeme; UNESCO: UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; WBG: World Bank Group; UNIDO: UN Industrial Development Organization; UN/CTAD: UN Conference on Trade and Development; UN/ECE: UN Economic Commission for Europe; CCD: Convention on Combating Desertification; CBC: Convention on Biological Diversity and CCC: Convention on Climate Change.

⁸ F: Facilitator; X: Agency or Secretariat which explicitly appears as a “major” partner for the Programme Element; -: means that it does not fully appear as a partner although it may eventually become one; (blank): Non UN Facilitators.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

IPF reports emphasize the need for more international coordination in research and for “new cultures” of research, putting emphasis on demand-driven, holistic and integrated approaches. This was also one of the recommendations of the Government of Japan/FAO/ITTO Kochi Workshop on Integrated Application of Sustainable Forest Management Practices (Kochi, Japan; November 22 - 25, 1996). The following are examples of some of the other institutions which are directly or indirectly involved in technology transfer, research and improving countries’ capacity building in relation to the development and implementation of criteria and indicators at the national and/or field levels (Table 2).

Table 2: Non-UN Institutions Supporting and Assisting Countries in the Development and Implementation of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management

PROGRAMME ELEMENT	OTHER MAJOR PARTNERS9
	ITTO	IUFRO	CIFOR	RDB	BD	EFI
I.1: Progress through national forests and land-use programs	X	-	-	X	-	-
I.4.2: Impact of air-borne pollution of forests	-	-	-	-	-	-
II: International cooperation in financial assistance and technical transfer for sustainable forest management	X	-	-	X	X	-
III.1(a)/1: Assessment of the multiple benefits of all types of forests	X	X	X	-	-	-
III.1(a)/2: Forest research10	-	X	F	-	-	X
III.2: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management11	X	X	X	X	-	-
IV: Trade and environment relating to forest goods and services	F	-		-	-	-

⁹ RDB: Regional Development Banks; BD: Bilateral Donors; EFI: European Forestry Institute. “F”: Facilitator.

¹⁰ Includes also ICRAF: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry; IBFRA: International Boreal Forest Research Association; and WCMC: World Conservation Monitoring Center.

¹¹ Includes also the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO)

IUFRO is a major partner, along with other international research institutions, mentioned in Part 2: Forestry Research of Program Element III. 1(A) as a complement of this element’s Part One: “Assessment of the Multiple Benefits of All Types of Forests.” IUFRO is also active in relation to Program Elements III.1(A)/2: “Forest Research” and III.2: “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management” (Table 2). Their involvement thus far has been mainly in the organization of international meetings on the issue (Melbourne, Australia, 24 - 28 August 1998; CATIE/Turrialba, Costa Rica, December 1999; Nancy, France, 21 - 25 March 2000).

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

The participation of the private and other non-government sectors appears to be even more important for the implementation of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level. The Program Elements in which CIFOR is involved are depicted in Table 2. In relation to Program Element 111.1(a)/2: “Forest Research,” CIFOR executes field oriented research in various countries (such as in Brazil, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Indonesia) focused on the identification and testing of criteria and indicators at this level. CIFOR expects that results of this research project will assist forest managers in the development of methodologies and scientifically sound, practical guidelines for the assessment and monitoring of sustainable forest management at the field level. Along with the Australian Council for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Kerala Forest Research Institute, India, CIFOR conducts field oriented research for testing of criteria and indicators of tropical forest plantations in Kerala.

High-level Support (G8)

Examples of high-level support for sustainable forest management include the Denver Summit of the G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and USA) in June 1997, where it was proposed to establish a practical “Action Program on Forests” that includes five categories of action:

· implementing national programs and building capacities for sustainable forest management;

· establishing networks of protected areas;

· assessing the state of each nation’s forests using agreed criteria and indicators;

· promoting private sector management of forests; and

· eliminating illegal logging.

The G8 countries met again at the Summit in Birmingham, England, (15 - 17 May 1998) and agreed on five categories of action including a commitment to continue work with partner countries to build national capacity to “improve scientific underpinning of the economic, social and environmental indicators of sustainable forest management.”

Private Participants

Several bilateral donors, development banks and NGOs also play an important role in technology transfer and capacity building in sustainable forest management, including the development and implementation of criteria and indicators (Table 2). It is estimated that the role of the private sector in forestry financing has increased by 60 percent since 1991. Regional bodies and institutes, such as the IIFM, also can play an important role as collaborators towards the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.

DEALING WITH REGIONAL AND NATIONAL CAPACITIES TO IMPLEMENT CRITERIA AND INDICATORS

Definitions, Terminology and Data Collection

In order to report on advances at international level concerning sustainable forest management, it is necessary that countries and/or processes use terminology and concepts that have the same meaning universally. In this respect the FAO/ITTO Expert Consultation: Harmonization Meeting of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (FAO/ITTO, 1995) reviewed the possibilities to ensure compatibility of ongoing work, including terminology. Besides agreeing on the need to exchange information, know-how and experience among ongoing initiatives to ensure comparability, the meeting also emphasized “the need to allow ongoing initiatives to pursue their aims unimpeded, reflecting the different environmental and socio-economic conditions from which they have sprung.”

In an effort to make field data collection more meaningful and efficient, countries need to revise the suggested set of national-level criteria and indicators. It is useful in a national exercise, to prioritize and decide which indicators are relevant and meaningful to the country based on current environmental, ecological, social and economic conditions, and those indicators the country has the capacity to measure and monitor. Given that most countries, especially developing countries, have problems in measuring some of the indicators, FAO encourages countries to collect and report field data of at least those parameters which form part of national forest inventories and whose results countries regularly contribute to FAO’s Forest Resources Assessment Program. In this respect the “Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000)” held in Kotka, Finland (June 1996) identified 15 indicators for sustainable forest management which could be assessed through the FRA 2000¹².

¹² Include the following: area of forest, area of other wooded land, area of forest by naturalness, area of forest plantations, forest areas converted to other uses, total forest biomass above ground, total carbon stock in forests, total volume of growing stock, changes over time of total volume of growing stock, changes over time of total forest biomass, changes over time of total carbon stock, area of forest and other wooded land available for wood production, area of forest by ownership, area of forest in protected areas and area of forest in other wooded lands burned annually. (FAO, 1996c).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The development, review and implementation of criteria and indicators are a continuing process. The success of the implementation can depend mainly on three conditions: (a) political endorsement principally from the respective national forestry authorities, as is the case of the Pan-European Forest Process, the Lepaterique Process of Central America and the Tarapoto Proposal, (b) processes should preferably operate within the framework of ongoing NFPs, and (c) indicators adopted should be based on countries’ priorities according to prevailing environmental, social, economic and institutional conditions.

NFPs can be an excellent vehicle for countries to implement the relevant set of criteria and indicators. Implementation will be facilitated if the following key points are considered to hold true by national authorities: (a) criteria and indicators are not a constraint but a useful tool for monitoring and reporting on trends over time in sustainable forest management, (b) all indicators do not have to be implemented with immediate effect; but that can be done progressively, (c) even the most developed countries in the world have problems in measuring some of their indicators and (d) the periodicity, or time span between measurements that will reflect the periodic rate of change of the parameter, will depend on countries’ technological and, even more, financial conditions and possibilities.

There continues to be an urgent need to arrive at common concepts and terminology, and to draw attention to continued and increased need for international dialogue to help facilitate common understanding and compatibility of action among countries and regions. Countries concerned need to ensure the compatibility of criteria and indicators implemented at national level and those being developed at the forest management unit level.

As suggested in a meeting of the Montreal Process during the XI World Forestry Congress (Turkey, October 1997), countries whose implementation of their criteria and indicators is still at very early stages, should look for assistance from those ongoing initiatives or countries within initiatives which, over the years, have progressed rapidly. For example, the Pan-European Forest Process in collaboration with FAO helped countries start criteria and indicators processes in Dry Zone Africa, the Near East and Central America.

Countries have limitations, which in varying degrees constrain implementation of national criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Thus it is important that priorities are set as to which indicators are to be considered “core indicators,” at least for the time being. The Forest Resources Assessment Program of FAO recommends that for the purpose of ongoing FRA 2000, the priority indicators to be looked refer to the following: forest resources, biological diversity, forest health and vitality, production of wood and forest products, soil and water protection, and social and economic functions. However, qualitative and descriptive indicators related to policy, legal and institutional frameworks are also important and, the inclusion of more of the “qualitative data” may be a desirable long-term aim.

Preliminary results of the implementation of criteria and indicators indicate that even the more developed countries have problems in the measurement and assessment of some of the indicators identified by the processes. Unless this issue is addressed in a timely manner, it could hinder the implementation process.

Within the limits of available resources, FAO will to continue with its role to ensure the flow and dissemination of information, know-how and technologies among the international processes, thus facilitating comparability and compatibility among them as requested by the IPF. FAO will also, to the extent possible, help countries requesting assistance in implementation.

ANNEX 1

NATIONAL-LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT FOR THE NEAR EAST
(Adopted by the FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting; Cairo, Egypt; 15 - 17 October 1996)¹³

¹³ Later on endorsed by the 12th Session of the Near East Forestry Commission (Cairo, Egypt 21 - 24 October 1996).

Criterion 1: EXTENT OF FOREST RESOURCES

1. Area and percentage of forests and “other wooded lands” (including plantations, agroforestry, shelterbelts) with their change over time (deforestation/reforestation/conversion)

2. Biomass/standing volume, growing stock, carbon stocks

3. Area and percentage of forests for which management plans are made

4. Area and percentage of forests and other wooded lands which have been demarcated

Criterion 2: CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN FOREST AREAS

2a. Ecosystem Indicators:

5. Distribution of forest ecosystems (area by type of vegetation, natural or man-made)

6. Areas of forest reserves and protected areas

7. Spatial fragmentation of forest resources

8. Excisions affecting rare ecosystems by area

2b. Species Indicators:

9. Number of forest dependent species (fauna, flora)

10. Area and number of species at risk in forest areas

11. Extent of mixed stands

12. Reliance on natural regeneration

2c. Genetic Indicators:

13. Existence of the number of seed provenance

14. Number of forest dependent species with reduced range

15. Population levels of key species across their range

Criterion 3: HEALTH, VITALITY AND INTEGRITY

3a. External influence indicators:

16. Areas and percentage of forest (plantations/natural forests) affected by:

a) natural fires
b) storms
c) insects and diseases
d) drought, wild animals (game)

3b. Forest vitality indicators:

17. Area of natural forests with healthy regeneration

18. Incidence of defoliation

3c. Anthropogenic influence indicators (site degradation):

19. Area of encroachment for farming, urban expansion and unplanned tourism

20. Average annual consumption of fuelwood per capita

21. Area and number of fires caused by people

22. Grazing damage by domestic animals

23. Competition from introduced plants

24. Trends in crop yields

Criterion 4: PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND FUNCTIONS

25. Percentage of forests and other wooded lands managed according to an integrated management plan¹⁴

¹⁴ To what extent management plans address environmental, socio economical productivity aspects of sustainable forest management.

26. Annual balance between wood increment and wood harvesting and trends

27. Wood production

28. Non-wood forest products outputs including among others aromatic and medicinal plants

Criterion 5: PROTECTIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS

5a. Protective functions:

29. Extent of forests and other wooded lands managed for protection purposes

30. Size and percentage of wooded areas managed mainly for the protection of watersheds

31. Areas managed for scenic and amenity purposes

32. Areas managed for soil protection

5b. Combating land degradation:

33. Area of sand dunes annually stabilized through tree/shrub planting

34. Area of eroded hillsides annually rehabilitated through tree/shrub planting

35. Efficiency of trees/shrubs planted in stabilizing sand dunes or rehabilitating eroded hillsides

36. Effectiveness of plans formulated for managing trees/shrubs planted for desertification control.

37. Extent of combating desertification

Criterion 6: MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS AND CONDITIONS

6a. Indicators of economic conditions:

38. Value of wood products

39. Value of non-wood forest products

40. Value of recreation

41. Value of hunting

42. Share of forest sector in GNP/GDP

43. Value from secondary forest industries

44. Value from biomass energy

45. Forest trade balance

46. Level of investment in forest sector and forest products-based industries

6b. Indicators of the distribution of benefits:

47. Employment generation in forest sector

48. Forest dependent communities involvement (numbers of organized groups and women)

49. Contribution to agricultural development

50. Rate of improved livelihood of forest dependent communities

51. Share of benefits from forest areas in the family income of forest region communities

52. Contribution to food security

6c. Indicators of participation among stakeholders in forestry:

53. Grassroots participation and equity

54. Number and area of resettlement schemes for people living in the forest

55. Reduction in the number of forest offences

56. Interest and contributions of the rural communities, media, NGOs, politicians and the public in general for the conservation and development of forests and forestry

Criterion 7: THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS

57. National forest policy, legislation and regulations

58. Institutional instruments and tools

59. Concrete implementation and capacity to monitor

60. Economic framework and financial instruments

61. Community consultation and information tools

62. Research and extension capacity

63. Valorization of local expertise, knowledge, and local technologies

64. Transfer and adaptation of appropriate technologies

65. Capacity to implement international instruments

ANNEX 2¹⁵

NATIONAL-LEVEL CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN DRY ZONE AFRICA
(Adopted by the UNEP/FAO Expert Meeting, Nairobi, Kenya; 21 - 24 November 1995)¹⁶

¹⁵ During the UNEP/FAO/SADC meeting (Lilongwe, Malawi, December 1998) the original set of criteria and indicators of the Dry Zone Africa Process was thoroughly re-reviewed and discussed by the National Coordinators. The end result of this exercise was a “new set” of national level criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management for SADC member countries with very minor changes. The only change introduced was the addition of another indicator: Criterion V; Indicator 28: Changes in water yield and quality. Thus, in practice it can be concluded that this “new set” with 48 indicators is very much the same as the original set of the Dry Zone Africa Process which has 47.

¹⁶ Later on endorsed by the 10th Session of the African Forestry and Wildlife Commission, South Africa, 27 November - 1 December 1995.

Criterion 1: MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES INCLUDING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CARBON CYCLES

Indicator:

1. Total area of forests, plantations and other wooded lands (and their changes over time)

2. Biomass (and its changes over time)

Criterion 2: CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN FOREST ECOSYSTEMS:

2a. Ecosystem indicators:

3. Areas by types of vegetation (natural and man-made)

4. Extent of protected areas

5. Fragmentation of forests

6. Area cleared annually of forest ecosystems containing endemic species

2b. Species indicators:

7. Number of forest-dependent species (and its change over time)

8. Number of forest dependent species at risk

9. Resources exploitation systems used

2c: Genetic indicators (fauna, flora):

10. Average number of provenances (and its change over time)

11. Number of forest dependent species with reduced range

12. Population levels of key species across their range

13. Management of genetic resources

Criterion 3: MAINTENANCE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH, VITALITY AND INTEGRITY

14. Areas and percentages of forest (natural and man-made) modified, with the indication of severity of damage by such agents as: fires (including frequency), storms (e.g. windthrow, flooded areas), insects and diseases, damage by wild and domesticated animals, competition from introduced plants, drought, damage by wind erosion)

15. Percentages of forest ecosystems with or without regeneration

16. Changes in nutrient balance and soil acidity

17. Bush encroachment

18. Trends in crop yields

19. Percentage of the population employed in crop and livestock farming

Criterion 4: MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF PRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS OF FORESTS AND OTHER WOODED LANDS

20. Percentage of forests and other wooded lands managed according to a management plan

21. Growing stock

22. Annual balance between growth and removal of wood products (and its change over time)

23. Average annual consumption of wood for energy per capita

24. Managed and sustainable extraction of non-wood forest products (and its change over time), including fodder (grass layer and fodder from trees/shrubs), consumptive wildlife utilization, honey, gum, misc. fruits, roots, edible leaves, medicinal substances, fibers for handicrafts, etc.

Criterion 5: MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT

25. Areas and percentages of forests and other wooded lands managed mainly for the protection and/or rehabilitation of agricultural or range lands, and/or rehabilitation of degraded lands and relevant important infrastructure works

26. Areas and percentages of forests and other wooded areas managed mainly for the production of water, protection of watersheds, riverine zones and for flood control

27. Areas of forests and other wooded lands managed for scenic and amenity purposes

Criterion 6: MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS

6a. Indicators for economic benefits:

28. Value of wood products

29. Value of non-wood forest products

30. Ecotourism (including hunting, recreation)

31. Share of forest sector in GNP

32. Value from primary and secondary industries

33. Value from biomass energy

34. Forest sector trade balance

35. Investment in forests and forest industries

6b. Indicators of the distribution of benefits:

36. Employment generation, notably in rural areas

37. Degree to which social, cultural and spiritual needs are met

38. Benefits accruing to local communities (with particular emphasis on women and youth)

39. Contributions to food security

Criterion 7: ADEQUACY OF LEGAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICIES FRAMEWORKS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

40. Existence of a national forest policy including the integration of forest management in rural land-use planning and development

41. Existence of a comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework providing for equitable access to resources, alternative forms of conflict resolution and consideration of land occupancy and cultural rights of local populations

42. Institutional, human and financial capacity to implement the national forestry policy, and relevant national and international laws, instruments and regulations

43. Research and development capacity

44. Existence of incentives for investments in the forestry sector

45. Valorization of local expertise, knowledge and technologies

46. Existence of measures to facilitate the transfer and adaptation of appropriate technologies

47. Existence of an administrative, policy and legal framework for the effective participation of local communities, NGOs and the private sector in forest policy formulation, implementation and monitoring

ANNEX 3

MOST RECENT ACTIVITIES OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL ONGOING
INITIATIVES ON CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

· Pan-European Forest Process: The activities of this process were recently reviewed at the Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (Lisbon, Portugal, 2 - 4 June 1998). Ministers responsible for forestry adopted, endorsed and encouraged countries to vigorously pursue the implementation of the six national-level criteria developed by member countries and the European Union; at the same time they also endorsed the associated indicators. Furthermore, they endorsed the “Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management.” These operational guidelines can be used on a voluntary basis to further promote sustainable forest management at the field level. As a follow-up to the last round table discussions in Brussels, Belgium (November 1998), the First Expert Meeting in Follow-up of the Lisbon Conference was convened in Vienna, Austria (31 March - 1 April 1999). Again as a follow-up of the last event, the Pan-European Forest Process has planned another meeting in Vienna, 1 October 1999.

· Montreal Process: Discussions and consultations within its twelve member countries aimed at refining and expanding information contained in the “First Approximation Report on Implementation,” published by its Technical Advisory Committee in 1997. The report provides an overview of the perceived relevance of the national-level criteria and indicators developed within this Process to the conditions, needs and priorities of individual participating countries; and reports on the availability of corresponding data. In its 13^th and latest meeting (Moscow, October 1998), the Montreal Process requested its Technical Advisory Committee to review and propose possible elements for forest unit-level criteria and indicators. The issue was discussed and reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee at a meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay (24 - 28 May 1999). The result of this meeting was a recommendation to the Working Group of the Montreal Process to be considered and likely to be approved in the coming meeting of the Group in Charleston, South Carolina, USA, from 28 November to 2 December 1999. Starting 1 July 1999, the Process made relevant information accessible to the world via its home page in Internet in English, Spanish and French.

· Tarapoto Proposal: Seven “National Consultations for Validation” organized for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela were completed between December 1996 and April 1999. Through these consultations, each country analyzed and systematically evaluated the relevance of the criteria and the applicability of the indicators (at the regional, national and forest management unit levels) developed within the framework of the Tarapoto Proposal in the light of economic, ecological, social, political and institutional conditions and needs of the Amazon region. The Government of Finland has just recently approved funds for the validation of the criteria and indicators in Brazil which will be done separately in three regions starting early next year. Once these tasks are completed, the Proposal will likely consider a Tarapoto II for next year.

· Near East Process: A follow-up workshop was organized by FAO in Cairo in June - July 1997 and attended by the Arab Centre for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD) and the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD). During this workshop, national coordinators first reported on progress in the analysis of applicability and testing or implementation of the national-level criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management developed within the framework of the Near East Process. Secondly, they presented a consolidated proposal for coordinated future action, taking into consideration the results of a country-based survey of the availability, periodicity and reliability of data corresponding to the proposed common criteria and indicators and the capacity of countries to undertake the work required. An FAO/UNEP National Coordinators meeting was held in Damascus, Syria (2 - 4 December 1998) in which progress in implementation of criteria and indicators in the Near East was analyzed. Following one of the recommendations of this meeting, and financed by FAO and UNEP, the draft of the “practical guidelines for the assessment and measurement of criteria and indicators in the region” are being reviewed. Once approved in their final form, these should help countries speed up implementation effectively.

· Dry Zone Africa Process: A follow-up workshop organized by UNEP/FAO in November 1997 in which countries presented an analysis of the applicability of the proposed national-level criteria and indicators, actual or potential availability of data and national capacities for collection and analysis of data. A consolidated Plan of Action was prepared and agreed upon by countries present in the November meeting. A follow-up UNEP/FAO/SCAD meeting of national coordinators for the implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in the SADC countries, Dry Zone Africa, was held in Lilongwe, Malawi (15 - 18 December 1998). The main objective of this meeting was to review and analyze progress towards implementation of criteria and indicators in SADC member countries. Future plans for implementation were drafted. Following one of the recommendations of this meeting, the draft of the “practical guidelines for the assessment and measurement of criteria and indicators in the SADC region” has been written and is being reviewed. The “guidelines” should assist member countries speed up implementation once they are approved by member countries.

· Lepaterique Process of Central America: The Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD), through its Technical Secretariat, the Central American Council on Forests and Protected Areas (CCAB-AP), reviewed and tested regional, national and forest management unit-level criteria and indicators proposed by the seven-member countries (CCAD/FAO/CCAB-AP, 1997). The regional Expert Meeting, organized within the framework of an FAO project in January 1997, was followed by two sub-regional workshops and seven national seminars supported by FAO and the CCAD. With some funding from FAO, the Lepaterique Process of Central America is currently doing a similar validation exercise as Tarapoto’s.

· International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO): ITTO is a major contributor and an important participant in sustainable tropical forest management. The assessment of forest management status and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies along with capacity building currently rank high in ITTO’s agenda. Through an Expert Panel established in 1997 by the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC), ITTO has revised the originally specified “ITTO Criteria for Sustainable Tropical Forest Management,” with due attention to recent trends and international developments in the field (ITTO, 1992). A draft document, “Criteria and Indicators for the Measurement of Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests,” was discussed by the XXIII Session of the ITTO in Yokohama, Japan, 1 - 6 December 1997 (ITTO/ITTC, 1998). This document identifies 7 criteria and 66 indicators applicable both at the national and forest unit levels.

· International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO): Its Inter-Divisional Task Force on Sustainable Forest Management, FAO and CIFOR organized an International Conference on Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (Melbourne, Australia; 24 - 28 August 1998) in support of the process of implementation of criteria and indicators world-wide and to secure their scientific base and validity.

· Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): CIFOR continues to execute a multi-year research project (financed by the European Union, other donors and previously also by the GTZ) focusing on the identification and testing of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management at this level. Efforts of the project have to date largely concentrated on criteria and related indicators dealing with biological diversity, with socio-economic and (to a lesser degree) with economic aspects. Field tests were carried in Brazil, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Indonesia. To complement this project, the Australian Council for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and CIFOR, in cooperation with the Kerala Forest Research Institute, India, are testing criteria and indicators for the sustainability of tropical forest plantation management in Kerala.

· The African Timber Organization (ATO): ATO continues to be active in identifying relevant “principles” and criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management through testing at the forest management unit level. Its main aim is the development of appropriate tools for classifying, qualifying and certifying forest management in its member nations.

ANNEX 4
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE MAJOR INTERNATIONAL ONGOING
PROCESSES ON CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT ¹⁷

¹⁷ The description of the Dry Zone Africa Process can be found at the beginning of this paper.

ITTO: The ITTO Process identifies 7 criteria and 66 indicators applicable both at the national and forest management unit levels in humid tropical forests of member tropical countries. (Date when the criteria and indicators were adopted: March 1992, Yokohama, Japan).

MEMBER COUNTRIES18: 53 countries. Australia, Austria, Belgium/Luxembourg, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, European Union, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Republic of Korea, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, United Kingdom, Unites States of America and Venezuela. 18 ITTO runs field tests on the implementation of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level in tropical countries only. Some, if not all, of the non-tropical member countries in the list participate in other ongoing international and/or regional processes and are ITTO members as an organization only and not as part of the process on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.

The Dry Zone Africa Process on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management identified 7 criteria and 47 indicators for sustainable forest management at the national level (November 1995, Nairobi, Kenya).

MEMBER COUNTRIES: Dry Zone Africa Process: 28 countries CILSS19 (9 countries): Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal. IGADD (7 countries): Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda. SADC (12 countries): Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 19 CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel; IGADD: The Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought Control and Development; SADC: Southern Africa Development Community.

The “Pan-European Forest Process” focuses on the development of criteria and indicator for the sustainable management of forests in European. In principle, it includes boreal, temperate and Mediterranean-type forests. The European countries have agreed on 6 common criteria, 27 quantitative indicators and a number of descriptive indicators for sustainable forest management at the regional and national levels (June 1993, Helsinki, Finland).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (38): Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

The “Montreal Process” deals with criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in temperate and boreal forests in 12 countries outside Europe. The 12 participating countries have agreed on a set of 7 non-legally binding, criteria and 67 indicators for sustainable forest management for national implementation. (February 1995, Santiago, Chile).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (12): Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Uruguay and USA.

The “Tarapoto Proposal of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainability of the Amazon Forest” is sponsored by the Amazon Cooperation Treaty. The 8 participating countries proposed 1 criterion and 7 indicators at the global level. Furthermore, it identifies 7 criteria and 47 indicators for implementation at the national level. For the forest management unit level, the process recognizes 4 criteria and 22 indicators (February 1995, Tarapoto, Peru).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (8): Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela.

In the FAO/UNEP Expert Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management for the Near East, countries identified 7 criteria and 65 indicators for sustainable forest management at the regional and national levels (October 1996, Cairo, Egypt).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (30): Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbeijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tadjikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

The “Lepaterique Process of Central America” on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in the region identified 4 criteria and 40 indicators at the regional level and 8 criteria and 53 indicators at the national level (Tegucigalpa, Honduras 20 - 24 January 1997). This was the beginning of the Process which was later complemented by two FAO/CCAD-supported sub-regional meetings and 7 national seminars on country-level implementation and on the identification of criteria and indicators at the forest management unit level (January 1997, Tegucigalpa, Honduras).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (7): Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

The African Timber Organization’s main priority since 1994 has been to “promote the implementation of sustainable forest management in ATO member countries,” and “in accordance with recommendations made at international level, specially by the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests,” it has chosen to use for its work five principles, two “sub-principles,” 26 criteria and 60 indicators at the regional and national levels (January 1993, Libreville, Gabon).

MEMBER COUNTRIES (13): Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome et Principe and Tanzania.

REFERENCES

Castañeda, F. 1998. Accelerating the Implementation of National Level Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in the Near East Countries. Report of the FAO/UNEP National Coordinators’ Meeting on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management for Near East Countries, 2 - 4 December 1998, Damascus, Syria

FAO. 1997. FAO Forestry Information Notes. Forest Products Certification, March 1997. FAO, Rome.

FAO. 1996a. Formulation, Implementation and Revision of National Forestry Programs: Basic Principles and Operational Choices. FAO, Rome.

FAO. 1996b. Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Final Report.

FAO. 1996c. FAO Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Secretariat Document: Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management at National Level and Possibilities to Assess Them in the Framework of National, Regional and Global Forest Inventories, Kotka, Finland.

FAO. 1997. Integrating Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in the National Forest Programs. FAO, Rome.

Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries. 1996. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Progress Report. Liaison Unit, Lisbon.

Prasad, R., Raghavan, S., Puhuhan, B.R. and Bharti Joshi (eds.). 1999. Proceedings of the National Technical Workshop (Under Bhopal-India Process of Sustainable Forest Management) on Evolving Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in India, Indian Institute of Forest Management, 21 - 23 January 1999, Bhopal, India.

Veltheim, Taina. 1996. Results from the Test Enquiry on Pan-European Criteria and Quantitative Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. In: Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 in Cooperation with ECE and Finnish Forest Research Institute; Research Paper 620. Helsinki, 1996.