Employing national C & I to assess country forest resource conditions is a good thing, but it is not sufficient to influence policies and decisions to achieve sustain- able resource management. Just as the medical and economic sectors enjoy well-established and accepted frameworks to characterize the vital signs of human health and the economy, C & I for sustainable resource management need to be integrated into the everyday fabric of country governmental, indus- trial and private-sector programmes. C & I frameworks can be and are being used for a number of purposes including: monitoring forest management;
accrediting or certifying forest industries with respect to how well they manage forests; guiding forest managers and policymakers to achieve better manage- ment of forests; and aiding forest institutions to prioritize resources by identifying areas that are most in need of remediation (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000). While much work remains, many countries have made substantive progress in integrat- ing C & I into country governmental, industrial and private-sector programmes and regulatory frameworks (Montreal Process Working Group, 2003). Together, this progress has contributed to the emerging mode of better science-based gov- ernance. Several examples of country involvement in the MP are described, with a broader amplification of US progress.
Australia
Australia’s forests cover 21% of the continent and comprise about 4% of the world’s forests (National Forest Inventory, 2003; United Nations Food and Agri- culture Organization, 2005). Australia has three primary levels of government:
commonwealth, state/territory and local. Politically, the responsibility for forest management and land allocation is with the six largely self-governing states and two mainland territories. Australian governments were quick to recognize the value of the Montreal Process framework for reporting and assessing sustainable forest management. However, Australia has realized that in order to report meaningfully within the C & I framework it had to be relevant to local social, economic and ecological environments (Howellet al., 2005). Major milestones that promote sustainable forest management in Australia include:
● A major development was the implementation, for the first time, of Australia’s sustainable forest management reporting framework in Australia’s State of the Forest Report 2003.
● After extensive stakeholder and public consultation, in 1998, Australia’s Framework of Regional (Sub-National) Level Criteria and Indicators of Sus- tainable Forest Management was published (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998). The framework, consisting of seven criteria and 74 indicators, is simi- lar to the Montreal Process framework but reflects Australia’s unique forest environment.
● Australian Forestry Standard. Australia identified economic, social and cultural parameters as key factors for assessing forests for certification.
The Australian Forestry Standard utilizes a modified set of the Montreal Process criteria as the basis for the development of the standard. As a result forest managers and owners now acknowledge that, in managing forests for wood production, other aspects reflected in the C & I must be considered.
These include environmental, economic and social values, with the goal of achieving environmentally responsible, socially acceptable and economically viable forest management.
● Several states have developed reports using the C & I. Australia’s use of criteria and indicators has not only greatly improved the reporting of forest sustain- ability at the national level but also provided a basis for the monitoring and reporting of sustainable forest management at the regional and local levels (Wilson, 2005).
Australia, like many countries around the world, is using C & I to help achieve community benefit within the constraints imposed by ecological processes, ensuring that future options are not foreclosed.
Canada
Almost half of Canada’s land is forest – representing 10% of the global forest area. Canada recognized at an early stage that successful development and implementation of C & I depend on the establishment and maintenance of strong linkages among those responsible for international, national, provincial and local activities. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) provides leadership on C & I for SFM and sets the direction for the stewardship and sus- tainable management of Canada’s forests. A core business activity of CCFM is to stimulate the development of policies and initiatives for the promotion of sustain- able forest management in Canada. Major milestones of accomplishment for Canada include:
● Working with partners, Canada established a comprehensive national forestry database. This is used to provide forestry information for the general public and federal, provincial and territorial policy processes. The new operating framework permits and promotes enhanced coordination among the various national information and knowledge initiatives.
● The C & I are being used to help guide national-level research in Canada related to SFM.
● Canadians want a vibrant 21st-century economy and see forestry as an important part of that economy. The government is committed to enhancing
rural development by finding opportunities to add greater value to natural resources. Canada’s national C & I framework features a number of indi- cators directly related to these goals, which offer tools to assist determining the progress towards the goals and provide guidance in making policy decisions.
● In Canada, forest management responsibilities rest with the provincial and territorial governments. Four provinces developed legislation or provincial strategies that require the use of C & I in assessing progress towards SFM.
In some cases the legislation or strategies are explicitly linked to the C & I framework, using the criteria to identify important strategic directions and values. One province developed a resource evaluation policy to support its legislation, which outlines a provincial framework using C & I.
● At the forest management unit (FMU) level, several provinces and territories have developed forest management planning manuals that use C & I to assess progress towards goals and objectives.
● The industrial sector has embedded C & I as part of their annual operational plans and reports (within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) system), and these are being incorporated into the development of their Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification systems. A number of indicators have a direct impact on a company’s forestry operation practices and these are used to develop forest management plans.
Canada has seen the value of linkages among all levels of jurisdiction and seen improvements in the reporting of progress to SFM (Hallet al., 2004).
USA
Forest covers about 23% of the USA and this represents about 6% of the world’s forest cover. The USA has been a leader in broadening and deepening the appli- cation of C & I. Activities have both directly and indirectly contributed to the emerging mode of better science-based governance as well as the building of institutional capacity for potential shared learning and collaborative planning processes designed to address shared social, economic and/or environmental concerns. Evidence of this reality includes the following.
Political and constituent support for the MP C & I
Leaders of federal agencies, the states and environmental and industry NGOs recognized the value of the C & I as an important tool (American Forest and Paper Association, 1993; GAO, 1994; Keystone Center, 1996; Interagency Working Group, 1998). Early in 1997, the National Association of State For- esters (50 State Foresters) requested the national forestry agency, the USDA Forest Service (FS), to play a leadership role in using the MP C & I for inte- grating inventory, monitoring and assessment programmes, fostering sustain- able forest management in all US forests (National Association of State Foresters, 1997). Early in 1998, a unique coalition of interest joined forces and requested the White House Council of Environmental Quality and the
Office of Management and Budget to place greater emphasis on the Presi- dent’s commitment to the SFM of US forests by the year 2000 (White House, 1993) through greater use of the MP C & I. Specifically, the letter requested the President to direct federal agencies with natural resource and monitoring responsibilities to collaborate with the FS to fully report on the MP C & I (National Association of State Foresterset al., 1998). This unprecedented let- ter was signed by the National Association of State Foresters, World Wildlife Fund, American Forest and Paper Association, Society of American Forests, National Audubon Society and Global Forest Policy Project. This broad base of support has increased over time as shown by a letter to the Chief of the FS in September 2005 (NASF et al., 2005). The September 2005 letter was signed by 14 national organizations from a broader coalition of interest, such as National Woodland Owners Association, the Wilderness Society and Defenders of Wildlife. The MP C & I are creating new alliances between par- ties that may not have worked together in the past. The FS is directly respon- sible for the management of 78 million ha of federal forests and grasslands of the national forest system. The agency’s State and Private Forestry Program is responsible for working with the 50 state governments and private land- owners and is thus indirectly responsible for promoting the sustainable man- agement of another 206 million ha of publicly and privately owned forests and grasslands in the USA.
Forums for discussion, development and application of the C & I
In response to broad political and constituent support, and as part of the US effort to implement the MP C & I, in 1997, the FS organized a forum to discuss the development and application of the MP C & I (Dombeck, 1997). While the initial forum was specific to the MP C & I for boreal and temperate forests, managers noted that the C & I approach had broader application than to just forests (Bartlett and Maczko, 2002). Managers noted that the MP criteria were sufficiently broad to serve as an umbrella for multiple resources. Thus the initial forest forum led to the establishment of several round tables. These round tables have the same or very similar criteria but indicators have been embel- lished to reflect the different resources and stakeholder values and business requirements.
● Sustainable Forests Round Table. The Sustainable Forests Round Table was officially chartered in 1999 [4]. The round table includes federal agencies and non-federal organizations that meet regularly to discuss the C & I for forest management and conservation in the USA, how data for the indica- tors are collected and who is responsible for acquiring the data. For exam- ple, the round table sponsored workshops for technical experts to identify regional and national data sets and information gaps, to measure the C & I at the national level (Maille, 2000). Work group members found that nine of the 28 MP biological indicators have been part of FS sampling for 70 years (US Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, 2001).
● Sustainable Rangelands Round Table. The round table includes federal agen- cies and non-federal organizations working together to identify indicators of
sustainability based on social, economic and ecological factors, to provide a framework for national assessments of rangelands and rangeland use [5].
Round table partners have identified five criteria and 64 indicators that characterize key attributes of rangeland sustainability. Partners are working together to prepare an inter-agency 2010 national assessment using the agreed C & I.
● Sustainable Minerals and Energy Round Table. The round table includes federal agencies and non-federal organizations ‘to support the nation’s com- mitment to sustainable development’ and to ‘develop indicators of sustainability, based on social, economic, and environmental factors, to pro- vide a means for assessing the status and trends of minerals/materials and energy systems’ [6]. Partners have identified C & I that characterize the sta- tus of mineral and energy resources. A draft assessment using the C & I is currently under development.
● Sustainable Water Round Table. Round table participants are committed to interdisciplinary, inter-jurisdictional and cross-ownership collaboration that identifies and supports national, state and field-level activities to sustain water resources. Round table discussions and activities focus in part on crite- ria, indicators and methods for assessing the sustainability of water resources, as well as exploring, promoting and improving how this informa- tion is used to promote sustainable water resource management [7].
Although the round tables are diverse, they have some important similari- ties. They are comprised of: government and non-governmental organizations, including federal government agencies; tribal, state and local units of govern- ment; private landowners and citizens; industries and businesses; conservation and environmental groups; regional and community-based organizations; and researchers and academics. They enjoy tremendous political and constituent support. Although they are not decision-making bodies, they contribute to better decision making through the sharing of information and perspectives among individuals representing diverse interests and by promoting inter-agency and stakeholder application of the C & I. Their work has had a positive impact, such as enhancing collaboration to address public issues, and they have helped to inform decision making and improve research. The respective C & I frameworks include social, economic and environmental indicators with a multi-scale appli- cation. Additionally, the capacity of agencies represented at round tables to col- lect and report on indicators varies greatly. This is because either the data have not been collected in a traditional way or because there is a lack of scientific agreement on how to measure an indicator or collect data. The round tables have been instrumental in shaping how domestic forest, rangeland, water and mineral and energy resource sustainability assessments are characterized. For a complete listing of important accomplishments of the round tables, please visit their respective websites.
States
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is a guiding force for change in promoting sustainable forest management. About half of the states are now
using MP C & I based protocols for assessment of their forests, as a tool to shape forest policy and practice, and to set priorities. Examples include:
● Oregon was the first state in the nation to embrace the MP C & I as a ‘lan- guage for discussion and measurement’. In 2000, the Oregon Department of Forestry completed a ‘First Approximation Report’ [8] using the MP C & I.
Oregon’s First Approximation Report, modelled after the US First Approxi- mation Report (Montreal Process Working Group, 1997), was the first step in an assessment process to determine data availability and data needs.
Oregon selected a subset of indicators from among the 67 MP C & I to mon- itor and evaluate conditions and trends of Oregon’s forests (Brown, 2004).
● Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources used the MP C & I to develop their 2003 Strategic Forest Lands Assessment. Maryland incorporated the C & I into three computer-based models that can be used to assess the eco- logical and economic values of their forests as well as their vulnerability to loss to urban development (Horan and Wolf, 2004). The C & I contributed to prioritizing land for land purchase or easement agreements identified in Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Matrix to retain values for citizens. The authors noted that the C & I provided data and clarity and enabled the public to see the larger picture: ‘Trust was built as a result of our common language of measures’.
● The Northeast Area Association of State Foresters, an organization that rep- resents the directors of 20 eastern state forestry agencies, adopted 18 indica- tors that span the seven criteria of the Montreal Process framework (USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, 2002). Each of the seven criteria is represented by indicators [9].
● The development of the NASF Principles and Guides for a Well Managed Forest (National Association of State Foresters, 2003). Work on the Princi- ples and Guides was strongly influenced by the framework provided by the MP C & I. The NASF developed these Principles and Guides as a means to assist in assessing the potential effectiveness of any system or programme’s capacity to guide a forest owner or manager in efforts to achieve a well- managed forest while attaining their objectives [10].
Such application of shared criteria and indicators enables increased capacity for shared learning, collaborative planning and, moreover, improved performance on the ground. The NASF continues to encourage states to use C & I as demonstrated.
County government
At the time of writing, this is one of the most exciting developments for conserva- tion of forest values. The Montreal Process Working Group [2] has always main- tained that the C & I were developed for use at the national (or other large landscape) level. However, as noted, the C & I approach has provided a power- ful conceptual framework for addressing sustainable forest management in many ways and scales of management. Over 3100 counties in the USA have vast tracts of forest land in private or county government ownership. Baltimore County is considered a national model for land use and forest protection, and is one of
three counties in the nation to participate in a progressive, comprehensive new strategy for evaluating and promoting sustainable forests – from both an envi- ronmental and an economic perspective. The county has successfully completed a national pilot programme, Linking Communities to the Montreal Process Crite- ria and Indicators, and is moving into the full programme implementation stage, which includes sharing its experience with other local communities. Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management has developed a Forest Sustainability Strategy collaboratively with citizens, advocates and business representatives. This plan includes guiding principles, goals, action steps and evaluation tools for 15 specific ecological and economic forest resource issues. Baltimore County’s strategic plan is linked to the Montreal Process C & I on forest sustainability [11]. This is an excellent example of the multi-scale application of the MP C & I framework for improving conditions on the ground.
Industrial and private sectors
C & I assessment frameworks and related certification mechanisms bring together sustainability concepts as specific performance requirements and accountability processes at the management unit level. Some certification processes that use C & I are long-standing while others are parallel, co-evolved mechanisms to MP C & I. Certification systems enable managers to assess whether good man- agement practices are being employed; they do not determine whether forests are managed sustainably. The MP C & I reflect more the sustainability of American forests, as trends captured in the C & I reflect the aggregated outcomes of both certified and uncertified forest activities. National-based systems incorporate both sustainability principles and C & I as templates to monitor long-term prog- ress. Certification is a localized, performance-based system, relying on general standards that are independently set and use specific measures to monitor on-the-ground performance that conforms to sustainability principles. Examples of C & I application by the industrial and private sector in the USA include the following:
● The Sustainable Forest Initiative is among the strongest systems for guiding forest management towards sustainable outcomes, especially in North America.
The Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) programme was adopted in 1994 as a condition of membership in the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). The SFI programme is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures, developed by professional foresters, conservationists and scientists, among others, that integrate the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the long-term protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. This work is built on the MP C & I. SFI has helped bring sustainability to the forefront in the USA. There are currently over 55 million ha of forest land in North America enrolled in the SFI programme, making it among the world’s largest sustainable forestry programmes. The SFI standard is overseen by the Sustainable Forestry Board, an independent non-profit organization responsible for maintaining and enhancing the SFI standard and verification/certification procedures [12].