Criteria and Indicators of
Sustainable Forest Management
and the Montreal Process
Objectives
In this presentation:
• You will learn about the origins of the Montreal
Process
• You will learn about some of the other criteria and
indicator schemes
• You will learn what is meant by a criterion and an
indicator
• You will understand why criteria and indicators (C&I)
form the basis for sustainable forest management
Background
• In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
• The conference was a critical moment in environmental policy
making, but a major stumbling block was encountered over
forests.
• No Convention was agreed, but an important document was
developed, the Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement
of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management,
Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of
Forests (the Forest Principles)
Behind the scenes negotiations
The failure to reach a consensus on a global forest convention in
1992 arose for a number of reasons. These included:
• The strategic importance of forest resources
• The desire amongst developing countries to ensure that
developed countries paid for the establishment of forest
reserves
• A feeling amongst some countries that the position of
developed nations had less credibility than was alleged
Behind the scenes negotiations
A particularly convincing argument that was put forward was
that ITTO had developed guidelines for the sustainable
management of forests in developing nations at a time when
developed countries were still exploiting their virgin forest
resources (especially the USA and Canada) with no international
guidelines about these.
To “celebrate” UNCED, Grenada, a tropical country in the Caribbean, issued a stamp
and minisheet featuring two controversial species (the Roosevelt elk and northern
spotted owl) from the Pacific Northwest, where there were major concerns about
the felling of old-growth forests.
CSCE Conference
In 1993, stung by comments that northern
countries had failed to develop their own
systems of sustainable forest management, a
meeting was organized under the auspices of
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, an organization whose role had been
severely undermined by the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1990. The venue was Montreal.
Montreal 1993
The meeting convened through the CSCE was
termed a “Seminar of Experts on Sustainable
Development of Temperate and Boreal Forests”.
Delegates from North America, Europe and a
number of other countries attended.
It was divided into two main groups, one dealing
with biophysical elements and one dealing with
socio-economic-cultural elements of forest
management.
Montreal 1993
By the end of the meeting, broad agreement had
been reached on the idea that sustainable forest
management (SFM) could be defined in terms of
criteria and indicators.
Broad agreement had also been reached on the
biophysical criteria that constituted SFM, but there
were sharp divisions over the approach that might
be used to assess socio-economic and cultural
aspects of forest management. This disagreement
has persisted.
Montreal 1993
In establishing the criteria and indicators, the
meeting took note of a number of documents,
including:
• The documents on SFM produced by the
International Tropical Timber Organization
• Draft documents on ecosystem management
produced by the US Forest Service
Montreal 1993
Although European countries were present at
the Montreal meeting (and in fact the
biophysical discussions were led by Switzerland),
Europe opted not to proceed with what became
known as the Montreal Process. Instead, they
decided to follow an initiative established under
the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of
Forests in Europe (MCPFE).
MCPFE
The MCPFE had had its first meeting in Strasbourg,
France in 1990, where it passed a number of
resolutions. The next meeting was held in Helsinki in
1993, where a resolution (H1) was passed on “General
Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests
in Europe”. This subsequently resulted in the
development of a set of criteria and indicators , known
as the Helsinki Process, although the name was later
changed in a number of iterations following successive
MCPFE meetings.
MCPFE
Resolution H1 of the Helsinki MCPFE stated:
The Signatory States and the European Community
commit themselves to preparing, without delay,
specific national or regional guidelines and to
incorporating them into their forestry plans and
programmes for the implementation of the above
General Guidelines, in a manner consistent with the
Statement of Forest Principles, and will collaborate in
the further development of these General Guidelines
for the sustainable management of forests in Europe.
http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_helsinki_resolutionH1.pdf
MCPFE
You will note that there is no reference to criteria and
indicators within this clause, and in fact there is no
mention of criteria or indicators within Resolution H1.
The European process only emerged after the Montreal
meeting – at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in 2004,
a core set of 6 criteria and 27 indicators were
identified, and at a meeting in Antalya, Turkey in 1995,
a set of 101 descriptive (policy) indicators was
identified
MCPFE
At the 3rd MCPFE meeting, in Lisbon, Portugal in 1998,
the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for
Sustainable Forest Management were approved (Lisbon
resolution L2).
In 2002, the indicator set was adjusted to include 6
criteria, 35 quantitative and 17 qualitative (policy)
indicators, a change that was endorsed at the 4th
MCPFE in Vienna in 2003.
http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_lisbon_resolution_annex2.pdf
Forest Europe
Within the framework of the MCPFE, the Oslo Ministerial Decision: European
Forests 2020 paragraph 24 b taken in 2011 states:
“Further improvements in forest monitoring and reporting
Stressing the importance of adequate, accessible and evidencebased forest information at all levels of policy making, and for
informing the broader public, FOREST EUROPE will further improve
the basis for forest monitoring and harmonised reporting systems to
serve emerging needs, including for verification of legality and
sustainability”
Towards this end a common data collection with FAO’s Global Forest
Resource Assessment (FRA) 2015 is being explored. This will allow
improving and harmonizing data collection and will ensure
consistent time series for the pan-European quantitative indicators.”
http://www.foresteurope.org/en/sfm-monitoring-and-reporting
Montreal Process
While the Europeans had been developing their own
criteria and indicators, other temperate and boreal
countries came together to develop a set of criteria and
indicators in 1993 and 1994.
This resulted in the Santiago Declaration, which
recognized 7 criteria and 67 indicators. This was
subsequently (in 2009) adjusted to 7 criteria and 54
indicators.
For the text of the Santiago Declaration, see:
http://www.fs.fed.us/sustained/santiago3_e.html
Membership of the Montreal Process
Argentina
Australia
Canada
Chile
China
Japan
Mexico
New Zealand
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
USA
Uruguay
Membership of the Montreal Process
•
•
•
•
83% of the world’s temperate and boreal forests
49% of all the world’s forests
33% of the world’s population
45% of all world trade in wood and wood products
Other C& I Sets
A range of other regional processes were underway at
the same time, many led by the regional offices of the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). All parts of the world were covered, and some
countries (such as Russia and China) took part in more
than process.
Tarapoto Process
• Involves: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana,
Peru, Suriname and Venezuela
• Initiated in 1995
• 12 criteria and 77 indicators of Amazon forest
sustainability
• Reduced to 8 criteria and 15 indicators in 2001
Lepaterique Process
• Correctly known as the Lepaterique Central
American Process on Criteria and Indicators
for Sustainable Forest Management
• Established in 1997
• Involved Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama
• 4 criteria and 40 indicators at the regional
level, 8 criteria and 53 indicators at the
national level
Dry-Zone Africa
• Correctly known as the Dry-Zone Africa
Process on Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management
• Established in 1995
• Involved 30 countries from Africa’s dry zone
• 7 criteria and 47 indicators at the national
level
Dry Forests in Asia
• Correctly known as the Regional Initiative for the
Development and Implementation of National
Level Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable
Management of Dry Forests in Asia
• Established in 1999
• Involved Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand
• 8 criteria and 49 indicators at the national level
Near East Process
• Established in 1996
• Involved 30 countries in the Near East
• 7 criteria and 65 indicators at the national and
regional levels
What is a criterion?
According to the FAO:
“Criteria define the essential elements against
which sustainability is assessed, with due
consideration paid to the productive, protective
and social roles of forests and forest ecosystems.
Each criterion relates to a key element of
sustainability, and may be described by one or
more indicators.”
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/
What is an indicator?
According to the FAO:
Indicators are parameters which can be
measured and correspond to a particular
criterion. They measure and help monitor the
status and changes of forests in quantitative,
qualitative and descriptive terms that reflect
forest values as seen by those who defined each
criterion.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/en/
Montreal Process Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
Conservation of biological diversity
Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
Maintenance of forest ecosystem health
Conservation and maintenance of soil and water
resources
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple
socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies
7. Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest
conservation and sustainable management
Montreal Process reporting
In theory, all countries should periodically report
on each of the indicators for each criterion. The
reports are often, but not always, called the
State of the Forest Report for a particular
country. An analysis of the Montreal process
reports reveals wide discrepancies, with
individual countries developing their own sets of
criteria and indicators, and some moving away
from the concept altogether.
Montreal Process reporting
Amongst the Montreal Process countries, some
have done better than others. The reports for
Australia, China, Japan and the USA are
particularly informative.
Convergence of C&I
The large number of different C&I schemes, together with
the existence of a global reporting system (the Forest
Resources Assessment conducted every 5 years by the
FAO) provides the opportunity for considerable
streamlining. This is in fact happening, but slowly. In
practice, despite periodic efforts to revive the concept,
many countries have moved away from C&I, either
because of the cost of monitoring and reporting, or
because the results (including the lack of results) are
politically embarrassing. This is not a criticism of C&I,
rather an indication of the low priority that many
governments give to forests.
Convergence of C&I
In particular, the intense data requirements of the
international administration of REDD+ payments led to a
joint statement by the Montréal Process, International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Forest Europe, and
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations in November 2012 on the need for better
coordination and harmonization in forest monitoring and
reporting:
http://www.montrealprocess.org/documents/spotlights/SolutionForREDD+.pdf
Conclusions
• The Montreal Process was established to define criteria
and indicators of sustainable forest management.
• Similar processes were set up elsewhere and there has
been a proliferation of monitoring and reporting
schemes
• The costs are high, and have led most governments to
undertake incomplete assessments
• Increasing pressure to provide data for multiple
purposes is leading to a rationalization of monitoring
schemes, and a simplification of indicator lists