Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in a Changing Climate: An Evaluation of Canada’s National Framework

Abstract

Sustainability is now woven throughout forest management and policy. Criteria and indicators (C&I) provide a means of defining the concepts of sustainability in the context of forest management and establishing goals to gauge progress. There have been no major research initiatives to determine the implications of climate change for C&I. We evaluated the 46 indicators of the 2003 Canadian Council of Forest Ministers framework. Indicators were evaluated for their relationships with climate, relationships with other indicators, robustness and utility under climate change, and future prospects, including abandonment, improvement, or continued use. An evaluation framework was developed to analyze indicator linkages, direct and indirect climate-change influence, and potential modifications. 12 indicators were considered unaffected by climate change. The remaining 34 indicators were considered to be influenced by climate change. No modification seemed warranted for 23 of these indicators, while modifications for the remaining 11 indicators were recommended. Six new indicators were identified for monitoring forests sustainably under climate change. The difference between action and state indicators had implications for the influence of climate change on indicator effectiveness. State indicators were more prone to declines in their tracking ability, while action indicators were often unaffected, or even improved under climate change, as measured by several key traits of indicator effectiveness. The most prevalent theme in the evaluations was a decline in indicator predictability. We suggest moving from predominantly retrospective analysis to a balance of retrospective and prospective analysis, given that monitoring is inherently backward-looking and the threats and uncertainties of climate change are impending.

Barriers to enhanced and integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management

“…Sustainable forest management as a concept provides a possible frame for comprehensive and integrated adaptation/mitigation (Spittlehouse 2005;Collaborative Partnership on Forests 2008;Seppälä et al 2009;Edwards and Hirsch 2012;Gray 2012;Steenberg et al 2013;Klenk et al 2015). In some cases, current SFM standards may already support aspects of both adaptation and mitigation (e.g., maintaining biodiversity, recognizing the role of forests in global ecological cycles) (FAO 2013;Klenk et al 2015).…”

“…Although SFM potentially provides the necessary enabling frame for comprehensive and integrated adaptation/mitigation, modifications to current SFM standards are needed because current versions of SFM tend not to be sufficiently explicit in terms of recognizing climate change and the linkages between adaptation and mitigation (Steenberg et al 2013;Williamson and Edwards 2014;Keenan 2015). Therefore, modified forms of SFM that recognize opportunities and requirements for both adaptation and mitigation and their interrelationships are needed (Williamson and Edwards 2014;Klenk et al 2015).…”

“…Forest management institutions that have not incorporated climate change are a barrier to adaptation and to mitigation in Canadian forest management (Klenk et al 2011; Johnston and Hesseln 2012; Hoberg et al 2016) and, therefore, by extension to comprehensive and integrated adaptation and mitigation. Currently forest management institutions in Canada do not consider climate change to the degree necessary for enabling effective climate response (Spittlehouse 2005; Johnston et al 2010; Klenk et al 2011; Greig and Bull 2011; Johnston and Hesseln 2012; Rayner 2012;Steenberg et al 2013;Nelson et al 2016;Hoberg et al 2016). This situation creates a dilemma for the mainstreaming of adaptation and mitigation, because institutions that do not consider climate change or that do not link adaptation and mitigation in policy contexts pose direct barriers to integrated adaptation and mitigation action(Locatelli et al 2011).Institutional barriers to comprehensive and integrated adaptation/mitigation can be grouped into two broad types.…”

Evaluating the implementation of the Pan-European Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management – A SWOT analysis

“…ITTO C&I process, Montréal Process, Forest Europe, African Timber Organization Process, Dry Zone Africa, Near East Process) related to the development http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.009 1470-160X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. of criteria and indicators as a tool for defining sustainable forest management and measuring its progress at the international, regional, national and FMU level (Brand, 1997;Mrosek et al, 2006;Steenberg et al, 2013).…”

Assisted tree migration in North America: policy legacies, enhanced forest policy integration and climate change adaptation

“…Steenberg et al (2012)'s review of broader SFM Criteria and Indicators (C&I) related to the new BC rules, for example, found "that there are no requirements for adaptation strategies in forest management plans, nor are there guidelines and sufficient experienced personnel to aid such activities" (p.692). This type of omission is troubling because in order to be successful ATM must involve a more systematic effort to move policy and practice beyond forest management alone.…”