25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: How Intergovernmental C&I Processes Have Made a Difference

Abstract

Growing concern about forest degradation and loss, combined with the political impetus supplied by the Earth Summit in 1992, led to the establishment of eleven intergovernmental, regional, and international forest-related processes focused on the use of criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management (SFM). Up to 171 countries have participated in these processes to apply C&I frameworks as a tool for data collection, monitoring, assessment, and reporting on SFM and on achieving various forest-related UN Sustainable Development Goals. Based on an expert survey and literature analysis we identify six interlinked impact domains of C&I efforts: (1) enhanced discourse and understanding of SFM; (2) shaped and focused engagement of science in SFM; (3) improved monitoring and reporting on SFM to facilitate transparency and evidence-based decision-making; (4) strengthened forest management practices; (5) facilitated assessment of progress towards SFM goals; and (6) improved forest-related dialog and communication. We conclude that the 25-year history of C&I work in forestry has had significant positive impacts, though challenges do remain for the implementation of C&I and progress towards SFM. The work should be continued and carried over to other sectors to advance sustainability goals more broadly.

25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded

“…The crucial question of if and how, the C&I processes have positively impacted SFM is complex. In a subsequent paper, we examine impacts of the intergovernmental processes and their C&I sets on (1) enhanced discourse and understanding of SFM, (2) increased engagement of science in SFM, (3) improved monitoring and reporting on SFM to facilitate transparency and evidence-based decision-making, (4) strengthened forest management practices, (5) facilitated assessment of progress towards SFM goals and (6) improved forest-related dialog and communication [23]. Most activities have remained within the forest sector and have found little resonance outside the sector where a general lack of interest by policy makers and society at large prevails.…”

“…Indicators have so far also been mainly used on a rather technical level for information and decision-making within the forest sector. However, indicators for SFM could be increasingly used to communicate and provide information to a broader public and to other sectors (like biodiversity, climate change mitigation, bioeconomy, energy) [23] as well as supporting new forms of information sharing. New approaches, such as key or headline indicators and subsets of indicators, should be applied to satisfy these needs.…”

“…The work has implications for global multi-sector indicator sets, market-based certification schemes and local C&I for SFM but they are not addressed in detail in this paper as the focus is on intergovernmental C&I processes. Likewise, the paper does not address the crucial and complex question of how these C&I processes have impacted SFM, saving this question for a subsequent paper [23].…”

“…The process itself, such as member countries or countries covered, political commitment of the membership, coordination, achievements, impacts. Due to its complexity, impacts on SFM are covered in a separate paper [23]. Ten representatives or insiders from eight out of the eleven regional and international processes replied to the questionnaire and also contribute to this paper as co-authors.…”

The assessment of Lithuanian private forestry sustainability

“…Šiuo metu žinoma 11 tarpvalstybinių ir tarptautinių miškų ūkio darnumo įvertinimo procesų, taikančių miškų ūkio darnumo įvertinimo kriterijus ir rodiklius (Linser et al, 2018).…”