AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION (USA)
IN SUPPORT OF
OBJECTIVE No. 3
STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS AND
FACILITATING THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Presented at the
International
Conference on the Contribution of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management: The Way Forward (CICI-2003)
Guatemala City, Guatemala,
3-7 February 2003
by|
Marvin D. Brown1
As one of the original participants in the Montreal Process to develop Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management (C&I), the US Government has continuously sought broad stakeholder involvement; and US forest industry, represented by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), has readily accepted this invitation.
Forest businesses are required to assess their activities in terms of the value that an activity adds to their enterprise and the challenges that must be met to achieve that value. By participating in the development and implementation of C&I, business interests obtain the benefits which C&I are meant to sustain, as well as the benefits derived from simply engaging in the process. The challenges of doing so relate to costs, building trust and creating a sufficient level of interest and understanding among members.
Domestically, the way forward for our members is directly linked to the ongoing US stakeholder process called "The Roundtable for Sustainable Forest Management." Internationally, further refinements to C&I at the global level could better serve members who are becoming increasingly more global in their scale of operations.
III. THE CHALLENGES REPRESENTED BY INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT IN CRITERIA AND INDICATORS
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, INDIA
IN SUPPORT OF
OBJECTIVE No. 3
STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND
STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS AND
FACILITATING THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Presented at the
International
Conference on the Contribution of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management: The Way Forward (CICI-2003)
Guatemala City, Guatemala,
3-7 February 2003
by
P.C.Kotwal and Dharmendra Chandrukar2
In Indian context, along with maintaining ecological stability, forests are central to livelihood system of communities living in and in the vicinity of forests. These communities also associate various religions, spiritual and cultural values with forests. In view of the environmental livelihood and socio-cultural dimension, Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) is imperative. The present policy prescriptions of National Forest Policy, 1988 advocate multiple objective forest management with active involvement of dependent communities. The participatory forest management regime called Joint Forest Management (JFM) is envisioned as a vehicle to achieve SFM goals. For achieving the perceived objectives, continuous monitoring of progress and assessment of direction of change is necessary such that adaptive control mechanisms are initiated. Henceforth it is quintessential to implement Criteria and Indicators (C&I) as first step towards operationalising SFM.
In congruence with the global initiatives for C&I development, the official India initiative is the Bhopal-India process that has defined 8 criteria and 43 indicators for SFM in India at National level. However, the diversity of ecological, economic and socio-cultural conditions make majority of the indicators less applicable at local level. In cognizance of the collaborative management regime, development of site-specific and locally relevant C&I is critical. Also, the methodology should build stakeholder confidence on the issues of forest sustainability and allow addition of local knowledge and iterative development of measurable practical and locally specific C&I. This case study is based on experiences in augmenting capacities to the grassroots communities for development of C&I through participatory processes. The study describes the methodological framework for C&I development and identifies areas for enhancing institutional capacities for operationalisation of SFM. It also proposes specific individual competency enhancement options that need to be perused for effective implementation of SFM. Based on the experiences of the Jhabua Forest Division of Madhya Pradesh province in India, the study site learning and insights are drawn for SFM in community managed areas.
Capacity building relates to the ability of people for selecting options on the basis of evaluation of opportunities and limitations. Capacity building broadly includes human, scientific technological organizational, institutional and resource capabilities. Primary objective of capacity building is to augment the existing ability for enhanced access to and control over resources and hence attain greater control over environment. Henceforth, capacity building has empowerment function. In C&I perspectives this would encompass ability to assess and choose between different modes and methodologies available for operationalisation suitable and specific to the prevalent environment. Specifically, capacity building initiatives would be targeted at enhancement of competencies for monitoring, assessment and reporting on indicators with concurrent strengthening of institutional structures for better interaction with the external environment. Awareness building, knowledge augmentation and especially skill enhancement would thus be the focus. Participatory management paradigm, enhancement of capacities of local communities and other stakeholder is imperative for soliciting informed participation of all actors. For operationalisation of C&I, the aspects that need focus would be selection of approaches, technologies and resources for optimization and effective utilization of local knowledge and capacities. The competency enhancement initiative would hence firstly ensure sensitization of local actors about the concepts of SFM and C&I with concurrent objectives of imparting resource literacy. This would create awareness about the rationale of sustained management and monitoring necessity. Secondly, knowledge augmentation should receive impetus such that the existing body of traditional knowledge can be harnessed and blended with scientific knowledge. This would harmonize the two knowledge systems, facilitate cross learning and help arriving at comprehensive knowledge base essential for developing locality specific C&I. For initiating monitoring, assessment and reporting on C&I for SFM, capacities need to be developed in relation to required skills. Skill enhancement initiative should therefore focus assessment technologies assimilation and collation of C&I information, planning and decision-making. This would ensure future oriented adaptive control in forest management interventions.
Similarly, institutional capacities need to be strengthened at local level, it being the operational unit. Development of managerial capacities, legal support and technical capacities is therefore essential. The objective of institutional capacity enhancement would be to facilitate bridging for horizontal linkages between similar institutions for information exchange and knowledge sharing with concurrent development of vertical linkages.
Jhabua is located between 21o55'30" and 23o14'15" North latitude and 74o2'30" and 75o2'30" East longitude. The division is situated in the southwestern border of Madhya Pradesh Province in India. Out of the total geographical area of 6793 square kilometers, 1550.94 kmē is allotted forest area. However, only 467.1 kmē of the allotted forest area is actually forested. The climate is tropical monsoon type with scarce rainfall. The total number of rainy days being 49, the average rainfall is 1007.83 mm. Mean monthly temperatures are maximum 32oC and minimum 18oC through variations may range from 5oC to 46oC. Varieties of soil types are found in the division. The major soil types are loam, clayey loam, black loam, sandy loam, red soil and lateritic soils. The soil type of division supports hardy species like teak.
The terrain is undulating making majority of the areas prone to soil erosion. The total population of the division is 1.1.3 million out of which 85.66% is tribal with high dependence on forests. These communities also associate religious, spiritual and socio-cultural values with forests apart from livelihood support. The forests of the division are Southern Tropical Dry Deciduous Teak (Tectona grandis) forests. Southern tropical mixed dry deciduous and Southern tropical thorn forests are also found in the division. The major species in the forests are Tectona grandis, Anogeissus latifolia, Pterocarpus marsupium, Cassia fistula Butea monosperma, Aegle marmecos, Wrightia tinctoria, Bahunia spp. etc. Natural regeneration in the division is inadequate, the problem aggravated by frequent droughts and biotic disturbances. Non-wood Forest Products (NWFPs) from the forests play a significant role in the livelihood support system of the local communities are Tendu (Diaspyros melanoxylon) leaves, fruits of Aonla (Emblica officinalis), Baheda (Terminalia bellirica), Mahua (Madhuca indica) etc. Salai (Boswellia serrata) is a very important species of cultural value for the tribes.
With the conceptual framework of synthesis of top-down and bottom-up approaches, the methodology for developing local level C&I was essentially workshop based. The workshop for evolving C&I had participation of all the local level actors including communities. In all 74 JFMC members, 5 field foresters and one representative from civil society organisation participated in the process of developing C&I. The methodology has been tested and standardized for replication and expansion in India.
The methodology comprises of three well defined processes. First, the real actors are sensitized about the concepts of SFM and C&I; and the need for assessment of direction of change. The tools for sensitization vary from open-house discussions, group exercises on status of forests before and after participatory management, games, analogies of measurements and sustainability in local contexts. Building on local contents and experiences, a clear understanding of SFM and C&I is developed among the actors. For the second step, the concept of breakout groups is employed. The participants are divided into small groups and the groups then brainstorm for evolving indicators and report to the whole group. The C&I set of Bhopal-India process serves as the base-set for the breakout group discussion processes serves as the base set for the breakout group discussion process. A draft set of indicators is arrived at as outcome of the process. The third step is of field validation of the evolved set of C&I. A transact walk is organised in the forest area under collaborative management and the evolved indicators are identified and validated in the field. Presentations and discussion follow the field exercise to iteratively define a site-specific C&I set. A local level C&I set was developed as outcome of the workshop and is known as the "Evolved Set of Criteria and Indicators: Kotnai, Jhabua".
The process of multi-stakeholder participation ensures that the different perceptions, priorities and conflicting interests are reconciled and reflected in the evolved C&I set. The local knowledge and wisdom inherent to the communities also get reflected in the C&I set. The evolved set of C&I contains locally relevant indicators from the base set along with new indicators specifically relevant to the site. The site specificity here is in terms of forest conditions, socio-economic conditions and cultural values and beliefs.
The methodological framework provides us with an easy to use mechanism for developing local unit C&I. Based on tenets of participatory processes; local conditions, knowledge and experience are foundation of the methodology. The process henceforth is first-step towards involving the real actors in monitoring forest conditions and perspective building for SFM. This enhances the extent and level of participation of stakeholders in forest management which is a critical factor in participatory forest management. The evolved indicators, especially the site-specific indicators are based on local knowledge, experience and day to day interface with the forests; stakeholders can easily comprehend the indicators. Although some indicators are qualitative in nature, the indigenous technical knowledge inherent to the communities provides them with sound scientific bans.
These scientific premises can also be validated. For example "Distance travelled and time taken for collection of fuel wood" as an indicator of forest resource productivity is based on the communities' direct interface with the forests. Higher the productivity less will be the distance travelled and time taken for collection. Further, measurement of the indicators can be done utilizing the local capacities and participatory methodologies and therefore technological needs are minimized. However capacity building initiatives for effective measurement and assessment, assimilation of information, analysis and planning would be necessitated for initiating and institutionalizing the C&I based monitoring system.
The C&I development process is followed up by initiatives for enhancement of capabilities for assessment of indicators. These interventions are targeted for measurement of ecological, socio-economic and institutional indicators. By designing suitable modules encompassing the three aspects and organizing training of institution members for the same results in augmentation of the requisite capabilities. However, methodology of imparting training should be participatory and congruent to the understanding level of the target audience. System development for periodic assessment and reporting to the institution members in appropriate platform follows. Design and development of user-friendly reporting formats is of significance in this regard. Through this process, the system of monitoring C&I is institutionalized and the trends get reflected in decision-making.
Research and technology development is critical for assessment and effective system development. In view of the collaborative regime, Participatory Action Research is imperative. This would integrate the indigenous knowledge of the communities with scientific knowledge leading to development of cost effective participatory assessment methodologies. Research is also of significance for bench marking and designing innovative mechanisms for effective participatory monitoring.
Sustainable management of natural resources in general and forests in particular is of critical significance both due to contribution towards environmental stability and sustainable livelihoods. Henceforth, it is imperative to assess the direction of change and progress towards SFM. Development and implementation of C&I based monitoring mechanisms would initiate a learning process of adaptive management. With the collaborative management regimes ensuring multi-stakeholder partnerships, operationalisation of C&I systems require augmentation of individual and institutional capacities. At local level in the co-management areas capacity enhancement interventions should target methodologies for developing locally relevant C&I in cognizance with the prevalent environment. However, due recognition should be given to the local knowledge of the communities. Capacities are also to be developed for periodic assessment and reporting of indicators focussing cost-effective and participatory mechanisms. Participatory research can facilitate development of user friendly techniques for co-management areas system design and implementation would ensure that the institutional capacities for analyzing progress towards sustainability are augmented and the decision support system is strengthened. This per se would institutionalize C&I systems eliciting maximum participation of the stakeholders.
FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE - FINLAND
IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIVE No.
3
STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND STAKEHOLDER
PARTNERSHIPS FOR IMPLEMENTING CRITERIA AND INDICATORS AND FACILITATING THE
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN ALL STAKEHOLDERS
Presented at the
International
Conference on the Contribution of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management: The Way Forward (CICI-2003)
Guatemala City, Guatemala,
3-7 February 2003
by
Jari Parviainen and Jouni Suoheimo3
CRITERIA AND INDICATOR SETS IN 1995 AND 2000
In Finland, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry launched the work for compiling the first set of national criteria and indicators of SFM in 1994 immediately after adoption the draft Pan-European criteria and indicators in Geneva 1994/Antalya 1995 (Helsinki process). The Pan-European set was further developed to characterising the specific conditions of Finland. A total of 167 indicators, 64 quantitative and 103 descriptive, were developed. Special attention was paid to the development of criteria 4 (Biological Diversity) and criteria 6 (Socio-economic and Cultural functions) since a significant amount of new information and experience was became available. A very comprehensive report under the title "Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Finland" was then published in 1997.
In 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry appointed a new working group to update and further develop the national criteria and indicator set. The goal of the revision was to adjust the set better serve the need for their practical applications in forestry. For this purpose, some indicators have been combined to make them more concrete, and some have been left out. The descriptive indicators have been merged into one single indicator for each criterion. Each new indicator embraces all the regulatory, economic, informational and institutional factors that effect sustainability. The present revised set contains a total of 47 individual indicators (previous 167). The renewed report with newest data was published in 2001 under the title "The State of Forestry in Finland 2000".
OBJECTIVES AND APPLICATIONS OF THE FINNISH NATIONAL C&I SETS
The main overall objectives of the national criteria and indicator set are the following:
The sustainable management of forests can be promoted by the development of the criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry, but also by the development of forest certification. The Finnish Forest Certification System (FFCS) was developed in 1996 - 1999 taking into account the latest international development on forest sustainability. However, the approaches used in these two processes (C & I, and certification) are different. The criteria and indicators are based on intergovernmental agreements and established forestry infrastructure, whereas forest certification represents voluntary activity by market actors and are primarily directed to the multifunctional forests by assuring by third party auditing that these forest are managed according to the agreed standards. Credible forest certification should be based on the internationally agreed criteria and indicators as well as on the forest and environmental legislation of the country, and supplement their development.
CAPACITY BUILDING: PARTICIPATION, DATA AND RESEARCH
Creating the indicator set
In Finland, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible and main actor for initiating the criteria and indicator process. Two other ministries: Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Trade and Industry are contributing by experts and as participants in working groups. Finland undertook participatory approach of formulating and assessing in the criteria and indicators development in an open and transparent way. The set has been produced in the same spirit as the Finnish National Forest Programme 2010 in years 1998-1999.
All the main stakeholders have been invited to take part in these processes: state and governmental authorities, private sector, industry, NGO's, labour unions, research, education and universities. For the newest set of criteria and indicators in 2000 the working group has met 15 times during the one and half a year and all invited stakeholder groups participated actively in the work. Throughout this intensive process the renewed set of 47 indicators was created. Although this was a long-term and costly exercise, the procedure has led to a strong consensus, commitment and positive attitude among stakeholders.
The majority of the indicators, especially quantitative are based on scientific research, but some are designed to express values or attitudes towards forest management. Consequently these indicators reflect the political goods set by stakeholders and need to be agreed as compromises in consensus. Majority of indicators including values are descriptive.
Compiling the information for indicators
Collection and compiling of information was complex and time- consuming task. In the Finnish criteria and indicator set for 2000 it lasted more then one year by two full time workers and the data had to be collected from more then 13 sources. An essential part of the information on the quantitative indicators was provided by the Finnish Forest Research Institute, which is responsible for National Forest Inventory (since 1923) and compiles annually Forest Statistical Yearbook.
Experiences have shown that the data collection system must be improved. This will be one of the most challenging tasks in the process of developing the criteria and indicators. Some parameters that had proved to be effective indicators of sustainability were difficult to express in numerical terms, or there was no comprehensive statistical data available on them. Some parameters can only successfully be compiled thanks to the results of special studies.Co-operation between various institutions in the collecting of data needs to be increased, and in the compilation of new statistics increasingly the aspects that can be used to measure the sustainability in forestry must be taken into consideration.
There was in Finland insufficient information on the sub-national level, in particular on the multiple use of forests, their social significance, or the biological diversity of forest ecosystems. Therefore, data gathering on the sub-national level must be developed if the criteria and indicators are to become efficient tools for monitoring of sub-national forest programmes.
Following experiences have been achieved during the criteria and indicator development in Finland since 1995.
APPENDIX I
Scheme of linkages between MCPFE work and political actions, criteria and indicator development and certification in Finland.
1 Director, Private Forest Lands Management, American Forest and Paper Association, 1111 19th St., NW; Washington, DC; 20036; Tel. 202-463-2732; [email protected].
2 National Project Leader and Project Manager, respectively, of the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) - ITTO Project; IIFM, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal; India. http://www.iifm.org; [email protected]
3 Director, Dr. For., Finnish Forest Research Institute, Joensuu Research Centre, Box 68, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland; Tel: +358 13 251 4010; Fax +358 13 251 4111; [email protected] and Senior Advisor, Dr. For., Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Box 30, FIN-00023 Government, Finland; Tel: +358 9 1605 2923; Fax +358 9 1605 2280; [email protected], respectively.
