The need for common concepts and definitions for the healthy and consistent growth of C&I processes has been highlighted by the active processes and endorsed by IPF and IFF. The processes that participated in CICI 2003 recommended further work in improving common understanding of concepts, terms and definitions related to C&I. More recently the UNFF ad hoc expert group on MAR (UNFF 2003b) urged the fourth session of UNFF to “Further encourage the CPF members to continue their efforts to harmonize forest-related definitions, in order to minimize inconsistencies and poor understanding of information and with an aim to reduce the reporting burden”.
There has been some ongoing work at international level to address the issue initiated particularly by FAO with the support of a number of other international organizations. (FAO, 2002a and FAO, 2002b). But these efforts were largely focused on harmonizing forest-related definitions by key international bodies that excluded C&I processes. The differences that exist range from definitions of criteria and indicators to determination of forest types. Inconsistencies in concepts and definitions pose problems particularly to countries that belong to more than one process if they are required to provide multiple reports. But so far they have not caused major concerns since there are no formal or operational links between processes. But this situation is likely to change in the future if greater coordination and collaboration takes place. The trend towards using reports from different C&I processes to derive consolidated analyses will also increase in the future with C&I likely to provide the framework for a variety of regular reports. These include FAO’s global FRA 2005 and country reporting to UNFF on monitoring, assessment and reporting progress towards implementation of SFM. The compilation of such reports aggregating country data will necessitate the use of consistent concepts and definitions.
The fourth session of UNFF to be held in May 2004 is to address C&I as part of its main agenda. Whatever the outcome of this meeting, continuous improvement towards common understanding of concepts and definitions, as well as ongoing work involving international organizations, with the cooperation of C&I processes, is essential.
A notable aspect of global C&I processes is their uneven growth and application. This has affected the consistent implementation of measures towards global SFM. In order for countries to commence application of C&I without delaying until sufficient data on different indicators become available, it has been suggested that a limited number of indicators be identified. Although the issue has been considered at many international fora over the past decade there has been some reluctance to do this. The reluctance is understandable given that sustainability is defined by the complete set of criteria. Unless progress is made on all fronts it does not lead to SFM.
CICI 2003 once again drew attention to the issue. It recommended that “countries with limited capacity consider starting with an easily measured and understood core set of indicators and expand gradually to cover other indicators of sustainable forest management.”
Notice that the recommendation refers to a core set of indicators and not a core set of criteria that was also a part of the past debate. The reason is that there appears to be a growing international consensus on the key elements of SFM. There are seven common thematic areas of SFM, based on the criteria of the nine ongoing regional and international C&I processes, acknowledged by CICI-2003, COFO 2003 and now taken into account for example in the global FRA and in the work of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) in streamlining forest-related reporting:
1. Extent of forest resources
2. Biological diversity
3. Forest health and vitality
4. Productive functions of forest resources
5. Protective functions of forest resources
6. Socio-economic functions
7. Legal, policy and institutional framework.
This consensus on common thematic areas (or criteria) effectively provides a common, implicit definition of sustainable forest management. It is a significant development in promoting global SFM. The next question is whether there is a need for a core set of indicators. Unlike criteria, which are largely universal, indicators can be region, process or country specific. To obtain useful data indicators need to be tailored to the specific conditions of each of them. In that sense it is questionable whether a universally agreed core set of indicators is necessary. The CICI recommendation for countries with limited capacity to start implementing C&I with an easily measured and understood core set of indicators and expand gradually to cover other indicators, remains a practical approach. In any event, there has been a recent trend to reduce the number of indicators and simplify them in the more advanced processes, because they realized there were too many. This process and continuing research will contribute to a rationalization of indicators in the long term.
An issue closely linked to a limited set of indicators is research. With C&I still in the developmental stage there are many issues that need to be resolved to make them fully operational. But this does not suggest that countries should delay implementing C&I until more research is completed. It is unlikely that any country completely lacks the basic data required to commence implementation of C&I. The essential step is to commence implementation with whatever information that is available and expand as research results or more information become available. In identifying areas for research CICI captured the situation well when it recommended that “national and international institutions should carry out research on criteria and indicators that are difficult to assess”.
There are several issues involved here. Forest area and production data that are currently available for most countries is no longer adequate to show how the forests are being managed or the extent of services provided especially in environmental and social areas. In some cases more funds are required to measure basic data on non-commercial forests, such as conservations lands. In other cases, a better understanding of the indicators to be measured and how to measure them are required. There is also a need to develop simple methodologies for those indicators that have proven difficult to assess. Additionally, forests, being dynamic ecosystems, change over time. Similarly, community values too tend to undergo change with time. These factors underline the need for research and periodic review of C&I systems to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. International and research organizations can play an important role in addressing research needs; an international technical advisory group could also play a useful role.
There are several aspects of C&I processes that need to be improved as identified in different fora including the CICI 2003 conference14. Our survey found many of the ongoing C&I processes confirming this need and highlighting a number of areas for strengthening if C&I are to play a more effective role in SFM.
Only three of the processes, Pan European, Montreal and African Timber Organization, had dedicated LO/S facilities. The Liaison Unit of MCPFE is a ‘moving’ secretariat hosted by one country for a period of five years and overseen by a general coordinating committee comprising four member countries selected to maintain a geographic and political balance. Current members of this committee are Poland, Austria, Norway and Spain with the secretariat in Poland. The four countries also share the funding of the LO/S.
Canada hosts the Montreal process LO/S and some costs are shared by the other member countries.
As a result of an ITTO-sponsored multi-phased project, a Liaison Office has been set up at the ATO Office in Gabon to coordinate the implementation of all the activities of the project that are C&I-related. The specific objectives of the project are:
(i) establish key elements of the adequate capacity to implement ATO/ITTO PCI at national level in the African producer member countries of ITTO; and
(ii) establish key elements of adequate capacity building for effective regional-level cooperation through ATO to support individual Member countries to implement the ATO/ITTO PCI.
Apart from the project under which the ATO/ITTO C&I implementation is funded the ITTO process does not have a dedicated LO/S. However, its own secretariat serves as an equivalent. The Secretariat coordinates all aspects of country reporting, as well as back-stopping C&I project training and overseeing various other aspects of C&I-related work, with the costs borne by ITTO's administrative budget.
In responding to our survey, the processes without LO/S facilities were unanimous that the absence has hindered their work. Similarly, one of the reasons for the effectiveness of MCPFE and MPCI was seen as the coordinating role of their liaison offices. Progress with ITTO C&I is to a large extent due to a similar role played by its secretariat.
The processes identified a number of areas where a LO/S could assist in improving the situation:
• coordinate activities among member countries as well as with other processes;
• seek commitment of senior administrators and policy-makers;
• prepare manuals;
• organize training;
• facilitate capacity building;
• act as a focal point for coordinating information;
• attract domestic and international resourcing;
• promote joint projects including demonstration projects using C&I.
All these are proved to be instruments of an effective C&I process, yet most of them are not currently undertaken in many C&I processes.
However, there was no agreed model among the respondents for a LO/S facility. An emerging approach is for a LO/S of an existing process to provide these services to another that does not have such a facility. Such a co-operation arrangement between MPCI and a regional process is currently under consideration. There was support for FAO, through its regional commissions, or similar means, taking on the role of LO/S, emphasizing that such organizations have greater impact than different countries fulfilling that role. Their expertise and neutrality were seen as important elements for success. In fact FAO, in some instances with the support of UNEP, has played an active role in the establishment of several of the regional C&I processes currently without LO/S facilities. Another option could be to tie the LO/S within an existing process, for example the Near East process that could benefit if it were closely linked to the Tehran process.
There is no one model of a LO/S that can fit all international and regional C&I processes that need one. The circumstances of each region are different. When an external body plays the lead role there is a tendency among the member countries to display less commitment. The bottom line for success is to have a facility for each process that is dynamic, responsive and representative. Another critical requirement for their success - adequate technical and financial support - cannot be overemphasized.
Lack of capacity is a fundamental obstacle faced by many countries in implementing C&I. ITTO, which carried out a comprehensive training and field-testing programme on its C&I, found that it was a major hindrance to their implementation in most countries (ITTO 2001). Institutional capacity in the forestry sector is generally weak in many countries. Dogru (2004 personal communication), in response to the questionnaire, reflecting on the Near East process, summed up the situation of many developing countries:
“Forestry departments are small and have limited number of staff in most of the region countries. These staff are heavily engaged in the daily implementation activities (conservation of forests against fires, encroachment, other biotic and abiotic agencies, afforestation, combating desertification). Institutional structures and capacities are weak in monitoring-assessment, inventory and planning fields. Forestry education and research units are weak or do not exist in some of the countries”.
Dogru is echoing views that have transpired in many recent international meetings that focused on SFM or monitoring, assessment and reporting. Thus, strengthening C&I cannot be separated from strengthening capacity. Capacity building includes a number of elements ranging from technical and financial to data availability, improving poor and irregular collection procedures, storage and analysis, capacity for monitoring and reporting, and ensuring sufficient stakeholder involvement.
Four recent international meetings have made recommendations on strengthening country capacity related to implementing SFM, in particular C&I. They are CICI 2003, a meeting of the working group of the Montreal process, September 2003, expert consultation held in Kotka, Finland, in July 2002, and UNFF ad hoc expert group on approaches and mechanisms for monitoring, assessment and reporting in, December 2003. They are listed in the box below under five main categories. Addressing them in a coordinated way will be important in strengthening C&I to make them more effective.
Strengthening capacity: proposals from recent international meetings |
i) Resources & the role of international organizations |
• Country forestry departments and C&I processes should seek support for their work on C&I through country partnerships, FAO, ITTO, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other relevant organizations and mechanisms. In this regard, the donor community should support the efforts of developing countries, including provision of financial support, technology and know-how. |
• Invite the GEF, within its mandate, to provide funds to strengthen national capacities of developing countries and countries with economies in transition for forest-related monitoring, assessment and reporting as a component of its projects in biological diversity, climate change and land degradation. |
• Invite CPF members and other international and regional organizations, instruments and processes to support capacity strengthening of those C&I processes that are at early stages of maturity, and encourage C&I processes to exchange their experience in capacity building efforts. |
ii) Co-operation & Co-ordination |
• C&I processes and their member countries should strengthen cooperation, including South-South and North-South cooperation, by sharing experience and know-how, such as through joint meetings, workshops, ministerial conferences, e-mail networks and other appropriate mechanisms. |
• Countries and processes should use existing mechanisms and fora to enhance collaboration and coordination among C&I processes, including the fostering capacity building. |
• C&I processes should increase communication, collaboration and cooperation among their members. |
iii) Data collection |
• C&I processes should review, refine and share data, and should develop strategies to help countries mobilize resources to collect needed data. |
iv) Research and education |
• Universities and other educational institutions should be encouraged to incorporate the latest information on sustainable forest management in their curricula and provide skills for developing and implementing C&I, including stakeholder participation, conflict management and public outreach. |
• National and international institutions should carry out or facilitate research on C&I that are difficult to assess. |
v) Other ways to be effective |
• Countries with limited capacity should consider starting with an easily measured and understood core set of indicators, and expand gradually to cover other indicators of sustainable forest management. |
An area, although not on a par with political commitment, yet very significant for successful implementation of C&I, is stakeholder participation. In democratic societies, political commitment often springs from stakeholder interest. For instance it is the stakeholders that started the SD and C&I concept; certification has more political support than C&I because stakeholders are demanding it. These show that the higher the level of awareness, understanding and commitment of the stakeholders, the better the chances are for wider acceptance and better implementation. It has also been a theme addressed in most international fora dealing with SFM and effective stakeholder involvement is one of the most important catalysts for the success of C&I implementation. Unless there is buy-in from all parties involved, implementing any sustainable management initiative is likely to fail. However, stakeholder processes are usually slow and can be expensive as they inherently seek to influence in some way the behaviour or attitudes of these groups (Prabhu, 2003). As pointed out by many of the respondents to our questionnaire there is at present insufficient involvement of key players in C&I work in many countries. C&I development has been largely a top-down process led by government agencies. International industry and environmental NGOs were also involved, but at national level stakeholder involvement has been low.
Good progress has been achieved in involving stakeholders at regional and international levels. Many fora now have stakeholder advisory groups. UNFF has initiated the multi-stakeholder dialogue that takes place during each session of the Forum. Recognizing the key role that stakeholders can play in the successful implementation of C&I, several international organizations and bilateral development agencies have come forward to support such efforts. Most such examples that were reviewed had received either funding or technical support from one or more extra-national agency.
Effective stakeholder participation involves not merely requests for participation. It should be an opportunity to participate in the selection of C&I themselves. It must be built on providing adequate time and resources as well as treating them as an integral part of the decision-making process. These efforts need to continue at the national level. There is an important role that FAO and ITTO as well as liaison offices of processes can play in bringing about better national-level stakeholder participation.
Progress in implementing C&I has to be made on two main frontiers. These are progressively increasing the level of application of C&I15 and, at the same time, increasing the number of countries involved in implementation (see diagram 1). It is only when both these conditions are met that positive progress towards global sustainable forest management is made. In the diagram it is movement to a new level from the curve A1 towards A3 as shown by the arrow.
But there are a number of problems related to both fronts as noted in this paper and elsewhere. One notable area that has not been addressed so far is the need to bring in the countries that are currently outside any C&I process16. There could be several reasons for their lack of involvement. As shown in Appendix 3, many of them are small island states that do not have the capacity or interest to get involved in such processes. Some could be unaware of the growing focus on SFM due to the small size of their forest sector. But all of them could benefit from sustainable forest management and the impetus C&I provide for this.
It is to be noted, however, that the position of these countries is not much different from some others that belong to a process, somewhat automatically, by being part of a region or a grouping that is committed to C&I, but without any in-country effort to absorb or implement them. International organizations such as FAO, ITTO and other CPF members as well as NGOs could play an important role in bringing these countries into the fold and making them active participants.
Application of criteria and indicators
Diagram 1: Achieving progress in C&I Implementation
14 See for instance Prabhu et al. 2003.
15 This includes the use of C&I at the country level for inventory design, assessments, policy development, sub national sustainability guidelines and assessments etc
16 See appendix table 3 for a tentative list of countries.
