Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and
Sustainable Management
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Indicator 7.59.
Capacity To Measure and Monitor Changes in the Conservation and Sustainable Management
of Forests, Including Compat­ibility With Other Countries in Measuring, Monitoring, and Reporting on Indicators Member Countries
What is the indicator and why is it important?
Consistent data among countries using the Montréal Process
will facilitate comparative monitoring of sustainable forest
management and trends over time. The member countries are:
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic
of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the
United States, and Uruguay.
What does the indicator show?
The United States works with other countries in the Montréal
Process through Technical Advisory Committees to help agree
on indicator revisions and develop common data formats.
Each country may have laws and geophysical situations that
are unique, but as much as possible, common data formats for
the indicators are adopted. Data compatibility is of course the
responsibility of the Federal Government.
The participating countries in the Montréal Process use education,
technical assistance, research, and planning to seek common
data formats and reporting methods. State forestry agencies,
private sector forest products firms, and forest land­owners
may contribute to these efforts by reporting data in the formats
sought for the United States and Montréal Process reports.
What has changed since 2003?
Reporting protocols are harmonized, to the extent possible, by
Montréal Process technical advisory committees, but the capacity of each country to collect and report all the data differs.
Data compatibility has improved in the 2010 report, but most
indicators are still not completely reported by any country, let
alone in the exactly same metrics and format.
Table 59-1. Policy and Governance Classification.
Mechanism
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya
Informational/educationalb
Discretionary/voluntaryc
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede
Scale:
National (N),
Regional (R),
State (S),
Local (L)
N, R
N, R, S
Approach
Prescriptive
Process or
Systems Based
Performance or
Outcome Based
Private
Enterprise
I
E, T, R, A
E, T, R, A
R, A
Laws (L), Regulations or Rules (R), International Agreements (I), Government Ownership or Production (G).
Education (E), Technical Assistance (T), Research (R), Protection (P), Analysis and Planning (A).
c
Best Management Practices (B), Self-regulation (S).
d
Incentives (I), Subsidies (S), Taxes (T), Payments for Environmental Service (P).
e
Free enterprise, private market allocation of forest resources (M), or market based instruments and payments, including forest certification (C) wetland banks (W), capand-trade (T), conservation easement or transfer of development rights (E).
a
b
Last Updated June 2011 1