Achieving forest biodiversity outcomes across scales, jurisdictions and sectors with cycles of adaptive management integrated through criteria and indicators

Abstract

The national forest strategy provided a model for Canada's international support for sustainable development, which later resulted in the development of a national biodiversity strategy. Adaptive management is a preferred approach for implementing such policies where incomplete knowledge and the highly variable dynamics associated with natural ecosystems are challenges. While the concept of adaptive management is embedded in various policies, complete implementation is only beginning in Canada. Case studies on adaptive management frameworks focusing on conservation and sustainable management of forest biodiversity compare how information has been integrated across spatial scales, jurisdictions and sectors of activity. To monitor progress in sustainable forest management, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers established a framework of criteria and indicators in 1995. The potential for criteria and indicators reporting to drive crossscale adaptive management of Canada's biological resources is discussed.

The Canadian Ecology Centre – Forestry Research Partnership: Implementing a research strategy based on an active adaptive management approach

“…Adaptive management can be considered as a continuum from reactive to active approaches (Baker 2000b, Duinker and Trevisan 2003, McAfee et al 2006. Often, reactive management occurs when a policy change results from public criticism, legal challenge or simply recognition that the current policy/practice is not achieving desired results; this precipitates a change but with no formal monitoring process to evaluate the effectiveness of that change.…”

“…Often, reactive management occurs when a policy change results from public criticism, legal challenge or simply recognition that the current policy/practice is not achieving desired results; this precipitates a change but with no formal monitoring process to evaluate the effectiveness of that change. Passive and active adaptive management are largely distinguished by the extent of learning they offer, the resources they require to be successfully carried out, and the degree to which management goals are incorporated into the design (Stankey et al 2005, McAfee et al 2006. Passive adaptive management is most frequently adopted by management agencies professing to be using an adaptive management approach (Baker 2000b).…”

“…Passive adaptive management is most frequently adopted by management agencies professing to be using an adaptive management approach (Baker 2000b). Passive adaptive management is characterized by the implementation of a single policy or hypothesis formulated on the basis of available data and knowledge as an appropriate means to reach management goals (McAfee et al 2006). This "best" management scenario is often selected from a set of scenarios tested through computer simulation models, and then implemented and evaluated through formal monitoring.…”

“…Active adaptive management is the deliberate, experimental evaluation of several policy/practice alternatives by implementing them simultaneously and comparing their outcomes (Baker 2000b, McAfee et al 2006. Multiple stakeholders are convened to establish a deliberate learning and experimentation process around the system being managed.…”

“…Adaptive management approaches can be considered as a continuum from reactive to active (Baker 2000b, Duinker and Trevisan 2003, McAfee et al 2006. Active adaptive management, which is the level intended by the CEC-FRP, is the deliberate, experimental evaluation of several policy/practice alternatives, accomplished by implementing them simultaneously and comparing their outcomes (McAfee et al 2006). This formal process requires the use of existing knowledge to pose potential alternative strategies/policies/practices that might achieve a specific management outcome such as the CEC-FRP's 10/10 goal.…”