This paper outlines the needs and benefits of harmonizing terms and definitions related to criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (SFM). It summarizes the activities undertaken so far, identifies current issues for further work and proposes ways ahead. The paper concludes that much work on harmonization has been going on for decades, and commendable progress has been achieved lately. However, there is an increased need for real breakthroughs in harmonizing – not to be confused with standardizing – definitions and indeed countries could gain considerable benefits from such undertakings.
The range of forest-related terms and definitions and their meanings are endless. This is the consequence of many factors, including the variety of ecological conditions where forests grow, their different practical management and the way forest administration is organized by public institutions. In addition, the variety of terms and definitions reflects the wide range of perceptions of the utility of many minor or major features of forests by different parts of society and their evolvement over time. Thus, there are dozens of definitions even for the most basic terms, such as “forest” and “tree”.
Different definitions of one and the same basic term can often be found even within a country. Such differing terms and definitions are used by the various institutions for different purposes, at local, regional or national levels. Definitions developed locally usually capture the specific characteristics of the ecological as well as socio-economic environment in which they are used. However, definitions used within a country very often evolved gradually over longer time spans with the changing role of forests in society. On international scale the divergence of terms and definitions simply adds a further dimension to national circumstances.
In the 1980s and 1990s of the 20th century, the global public and political interest in forest issues has increased dramatically. The International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) was signed in 1983 as an international treaty. Since the 1990s governments have signed a range of conventions, protocols and agreements on forest-related aspects. The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) “Forest Principles” and the Agenda 21 forest-related chapters contain specifications of the term “sustainable forest management” without specifically using this very term. Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 of UNCED calls for the formulation of criteria and guidelines for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. Likewise, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) as well as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
After UNCED regional processes to develop criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management played an immensely important role in further developing an improved understanding of the meaning of the term sustainable forest management and the multitude of aspects involved, at all levels, in addition to the work by the international fora listed above. Some of these processes, such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) in 1991 or the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) in 1993 have specifically defined the term “SFM”. All of the nine processes currently existing have laid the foundation of a considerably renewed and expanded understanding of what is involved in the sustainable management of all types of forests.
Given these varying origins, contexts and purposes, it is not surprising that forest-related definitions diverge within and between nations, between international conventions and regional processes, and between different points in time. However, the abundance of different terms and definitions on an international level increasingly leads to difficulties in the international dialogue and reporting. Not only do different interpretations of the same definition effectively hinder communication and make it more difficult to reach a common understanding among the multitude of partners involved. They also lead to:
- increased cost of assessments
- duplicating of efforts, and overlaps in reporting
- inconsistencies between different reporting on the same topics, but to different institutions and related difficulties of interpretation
- misinterpretation of data
- increased coordination burdens
- undue delays in reporting and in international negotiations
- ambiguities in interpretation
- non-compatible data that cannot be aggregated
