It is important to keep the use of genetic diversity indicators in perspective. They are not an end in themselves, but are an element that should provide information about an important aspect of sustainable forest management. For any indicator to be useful in practice, the data must be easy and cheap to collect and the significance for sustainability of the ecosystem must be clear. Most forest management agencies simply cannot afford to implement indicator systems that require large resources for data collection or expensive analytical techniques. In fact, doing so could divert resources away from critical management activities (Sheil, 2001).
This survey has shown that the current indicators in the various criteria and indicator processes are generally not effective for measuring the status and trends in genetic diversity in forest ecosystems. Because it is not feasible to monitor every aspect of biological diversity, suitable surrogate measures need to be sought. The most appropriate surrogates are those ecological processes that control genetic diversity. Recent developments appear to be heading in that direction.
Direct quantitative assessment of genetic diversity by biochemical means is not yet, and probably will never be, capable of use for routine operational purposes, for the reasons outlined above in this report. However, biochemical techniques are invaluable tools for research to support the identification of suitable surrogate attributes. A great deal more research is required before we can have any confidence that we have the most effective surrogates. It is likely that, since we are basically looking for ecological processes as surrogates, there are potentially indicators that will be common to most forest types. It is unfortunate that the criteria and indicator approach as a whole, which holds so much promise as a spur to better forest management, seems to have lost impetus in some processes. Perhaps too much has been expected too soon (Lowe, 1995). Indicator systems are in an early stage of development, and the development needs to continue. We can expect further refinement over the next few years, provided the political commitment to the concept remains strong. Such commitment is an immediate concern in many countries. There is a real risk that criteria and indicator processes will languish in some countries where the resources to implement them are lacking. While some indicators have proven relatively easy to implement, others, particularly biological diversity indicators, are proving much more difficult.
With respect to forest genetic diversity, we may have to be satisfied, for the foreseeable future, with a qualitative approach that requires forest managers to have in place an appropriate strategy for its management. Such strategies are themselves not easy to develop and implement and will vary greatly according to local circumstances.
