Skip to main content

Working Group Meeting Report

13th Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
Montréal Process

San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
November 26-28, 2001


  1. The Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montréal Process) held its 13th meeting in San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, 26-28 November 2001. The Montréal Process includes Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, United States of America and Uruguay, which together represent 60% of the world's forests.
  2. The meeting was opened and chaired by Mr. Alberto Torres, National Director of Forest Plantations. Mr. Arturo Navarro, Member of the Board of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (INTA), provided welcoming remarks.
  3. The meeting included 38 participants, including representatives from member countries of the Montréal Process; international observers from the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE/Pan-European Forest Process) and the Central American/Lepaterique process; and Argentine observers from Fundacion Vida Silvestre Argentina/WWF, Direccion Bosques - Rio Negro, Direccion General de Bosques y Parques de Chubut, CIEFAP, and Argentine Forestry Association (AFORO). Annex A includes a list of meeting participants.
  4. Host Country Presentations. The meeting welcomed presentations by Mr. Torres who provided an overview of sustainable forest management in Argentina and the use of the Montréal Process criteria and indicators, and by Ms. Veronica Rusch, INTA researcher who described the Patagonian forest region, setting the context for the Working Group field trip, and a number of research activities being undertaken in Patagonian forests by Argentina related to criteria and indicators.
  5. Update Since the 12th Working Group Meeting. Kathryn Buchanan of the Liaison Office provided the following update on progress since the 12th Working Group meeting (Beijing, People's Republic of China, November 2000):
    1. The Liaison Office has added the following items to the Montréal Process web site: The Montréal Process Technical Notes, a Disclaimer Note for Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) papers (as agreed at 12th Meeting in Beijing), and revised TAC papers from the 11th Working Group Meeting in Charleston, South Carolina.
    2. The 5th meeting of the TAC was held in New Zealand, May 2000, to prepare a draft list of indicators to be included in the Highlights on Trends section of the 2003 Overview Report, develop an outline for the Highlights section and a sample national report, and consider the feasibility of a capacity building workshop.
    3. A workshop on capacity building was hosted by the USA in Portland, Oregon, USA, August 2000, to assist countries in preparing their contributions to the Overview Report and their national reports for the First Montréal Process Forest Report - 20031. Canada also has prepared a sample national report to facilitate report preparation.
    4. The Liaison Office prepared a Montréal Process presentation for the Country-led Initiative in Support of UNFF - International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting (MAR) on the Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management hosted by Japan, November 2001.
  6. Southern Cone Countries. The meeting welcomed a presentation by Ms. Marcela Ochoa of Chile on activities of the Southern Cone countries of the Montréal Process (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay), which held their second meeting in Castro, Chile 19-23 March 2001. The presentation provided an overview of progress by Argentina, Chile and Uruguay regarding co-operation among the Southern Cone countries, identification of common elements for the design of cooperative projects, exchange of experiences and methodologies on implementation issues, and identification of potential sources of financing to support Southern Cone country efforts, individually and jointly, to implement criteria and indicators.
  7. Of special note, the three countries have agreed to create a joint "Southern Cone Secretariat of the Montréal Process" to set a common vision of the Montréal Process, facilitate coordination and exchange of views, develop joint projects, enhance political and resource commitments domestically, strengthened national capacity, and improve translation and distribution of documents. The Secretariat, currently in Chile, will rotate among the three countries every two years and will be supported by national Secretariats.
  8. Regarding potential sources of external financing, the Southern Cone countries were encouraged to develop project proposals for submission to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other sources. With respect to the GEF, it was suggested that emphasis be placed on projects with specific reference to Criteria 1 & 5 of the Montréal Process. Annex B includes the Memorandum of the March 2001 meeting and materials on the Southern Cone Secretariat and Framework for the Joint Task Development in the Southern Cone.
  9. International Context - New Developments. The meeting also welcomed presentations on new international developments regarding criteria and indicators. Mr. Hashiramoto presented the results of the recent Country-led Initiative in Support of UNFF - International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting (MAR) on the Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management hosted by Japan, at which a presentation on the Montréal Process was made by Don Wijewardana of New Zealand. The MAR Report (see Annex C) will be distributed as a conference document at UNFF 2 in March 2003. Dr. Ewald Rametsteiner of the MCPFE Liaison Unit reported on the status of the MCPFE 2001-2002 work on improving the Pan-European quantitative and descriptive indicators, which he indicated is likely to result in incremental changes to the indicators. Criteria and indicators will be the basis of the MCPEE report to the 4th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe, 28-30 April 2003. Mr. Juan Blas Zapata provided an update on the Central American Lepaterique Process, which includes regional, national, and management level criteria and indicators, as well as specific activities being undertaken in Honduras.
  10. The meeting welcomed the cosponsorship by the US of the 2nd International Conference on Criteria and Indicators (ICCI) in Guatemala in July 2002 and encouraged other governments and interested parties to cosponsor or otherwise contribute to this important meeting.
  11. 2003 Overview Report. The meeting welcomed the report by Rob Hendricks, Convenor of the TAC on the results of the 5th meeting of the TAC (New Zealand, May 2001) regarding the preparation of the Overview Report of the First Montréal Process Forest Report (2003). The Working Group accepted the proposed outline for the "Highlights on Trends" section of the Overview Report and the seven indicators listed in Annex D as indicators all countries would report on in the Highlights section. The Working Group also agreed to the schedule for preparations of the Overview Report and National Reports contained in Annex E and stressed the importance of all countries, the TAC and the Liaison Office in meeting the deadlines. It was further agreed that the final Overview Report will be published in English, Spanish, and French. It was suggested that countries translate the Overview Report into their own languages to facilitate domestic use.
  12. The Working Group expressed its appreciation to New Zealand for hosting the 5th meeting of the TAC and to Australia for taking the initiative to host, following the TAC meeting, a presentation and field trip to share experiences with TAC members on implementation of criteria and indicators at a national and sub-national level in southeast New South Wales.
  13. Frequency of Reporting. The Working Group agreed that subsequent Montréal Process Forest Reports should be prepared and published at a frequency that balances the ability to measure meaningful change, build capacity, respond to domestic audiences and maintain momentum and international visibility. The Working Group agreed that Montréal Process reporting should be undertaken on a regular basis at 5-6 year intervals, taking into account the schedule of relevant international events (e.g., World Forestry Congress) and timeframes for related forest reporting (e.g., Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment - TBFRA).
  14. Communication and Outreach Plan. The meeting welcomed the introduction by the Liaison Office and the USA of a revised draft of the Montréal Process Communication and Outreach Plan, which is intended to improve communication and outreach with policy makers and the general public, increasing recognition among a wide range of domestic and international audiences of the importance of criteria and indicators and of the progress being made by member countries in implementing them. Following a discussion of the revised draft, the Working Group adopted the Communication and Outreach Plan contained in Annex F, as an Interim Plan, which will be finalized at the 14th Montréal Process Working Group meeting, including the identification of relevant short-term priorities and actions.
  15. Capacity Building for 2003 National Reports. The meeting welcomed the report by New Zealand on the capacity building workshop, held in Portland, Oregon, USA, to assist countries to meet their priority needs for preparation of their 2003 national reports. The workshop brought together technical experts and those with national responsibility for National Reports and focused on one selected indicator per criterion that most countries have some ability to report on. The Working Group noted that the workshop report will serve as a supplement to the Technical Notes and includes recommendations and important common understandings on definitions, parameters, analytical methods and inter-country collaboration to strengthen reporting capacity and significantly improve consistency of country contributions to the Highlights Section of the 2003 report. It will also provide useful guidance for reporting on the other indicators.
  16. The meeting expressed its appreciation to Australia, Chile, New Zealand and the United States for their collaborative efforts in organising the workshop. Final editing of the workshop documentation and guidelines is nearly complete and will be available on a CD shortly.
  17. The meeting also welcomed the preparation by Canada of a sample national report, on which countries can draw in preparing their national reports. The meeting asked the Liaison Office to post both the sample national report and the capacity building workshop documentation on the Montréal Process web site as soon as possible.
  18. Publication of TAC Documents. The meeting expressed its appreciation to Canada for its initiative to publish in English, Spanish and French the TAC documents from the 11th and 12th Montréal Process Meetings in a single document entitled "Scaling National Criteria and Indicators to the Local Level".
  19. WSSD. The meeting exchanged views regarding preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be held in Johannesburg in September 2002. The UNFF 2 meeting and Ministerial segment in March 2002 was identified as an important milestone for sending a message to the WSSD on the importance of forests, and countries were encouraged to use this opportunity to bring the success of criteria and indicators to the foreground. All agreed that criteria and indicators were one of the major accomplishments on forests since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and as such should be highlighted in the WSSD review of progress on Agenda 21, especially Chapter 11. Participants were also encouraged to consider in the coming months how forests in general and the Montréal Process in particular might be taken forward and promoted at the WSSD, which is expected to launch new initiatives related to sustainable development.
  20. Relationship of C&I to UNFF. The Working Group reaffirmed the views of experts at the Yokohama MAR meeting on the importance of utilizing existing monitoring and assessment tools to the extent possible in reporting to the UNFF on national implementation of the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action and on national progress toward sustainable forest management. Japan provided an excellent overview of criteria and indicators in the IPF/IFF and UNFF context. The USA presented its work on criteria and indicators, which provides a framework describing the common elements and the links between the Montréal Process criteria and indicators and the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action. This work drew on the Practitioner's Guide developed by the Six-Country Initiative in 1999 and the Australian Summary developed in 2000 to improve understanding of the IPF/IFF Proposals. The meeting discussed the applicability of criteria and indicators for national reporting to the UNFF on domestic actions and progress and noted that if criteria and indicators are used for this purpose, additional reporting to address international cooperation would be needed.
  21. Procedural Matters. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Montréal Process meetings, the Working Group agreed that in future all documentation to be reviewed and discussed at a Working Group meeting should be submitted to Working Group members not later than 20 calendar days prior to the meeting. This includes documents prepared by the TAC, the Liaison Office, the host government and individual member countries.
  22. In order to have a better understanding of the budgetary implications of the Montréal Process, the Working Group requested the Liaison Office to prepare a report for review at the 14th Montréal Process meeting on the annual costs of the Montréal Process and contributions by members beginning in 1997. This should include the costs (e.g., for conference services, travel, interpretation) of Working Group and TAC meetings; Liaison Office operations; translation, publication and dissemination of documents; and workshops. It should also include the contributions of member countries and host governments in covering these costs.
  23. In this context, the Working Group requested the Liaison Office to provide for review at the 14th Working Group meeting draft terms of reference for the Office.
  24. 6th TAC Meeting. The meeting welcomed the offer by Mexico to host the 6th meeting of the TAC in Oaxaca in August 2002.
  25. 14th Working Group Meeting. The meeting welcomed the offer by Uruguay to consider the feasibility of hosting the 14th Meeting of the Montréal Process Working Group in November or December of 2002 and agreed that the theme of the meeting should be the 2003 Report. It also agreed to consider the following agenda items:
    1. Finalization of 2003 Overview Report
    2. Review and possible modification of the Montréal Process web site
    3. Finalization of the Montréal Process Communications and Outreach Plan and identification of short-term priorities
    4. Review of Montréal Process Working Group budgetary matters including annual costs and contributions by members since 1997
    5. Follow-up to UNFF 2, 2nd International Conference on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, and WSSD
    6. Preparation for the High Level segment to be included in the 15th Montréal Process Working Group meeting
  26. 15th Working Group Meeting. The Working Group welcomed the offer by Canada to host the 15th Meeting of the Montréal Process Working Group in conjunction with the World Forestry Congress, to be held in Québec City in September 2003. The Working Group agreed that the 15th meeting, which will occur following publication of the 2003 Report, should focus on evaluating Montréal Process progress to date, especially in light of experience gained in preparing the First Montréal Process Forest Report (2003), the experience of other criteria and indicators processes, especially the MCPFE process, and international developments related to criteria and indicators.
  27. The Montréal Process countries recognized with appreciation the excellent support provided by Canada to the Working Group and welcomed the continued willingness of Canada to serve as the Liaison Office for the Montréal Process.
  28. Joining the Montréal Process. The Montréal Process countries reaffirmed that the procedure for countries to join the Montréal Process is a diplomatic one. An interested country should, by diplomatic channels, inform the Government of Chile that its government endorses the Santiago Declaration. Chile will inform Canada as the LO, which will inform other Montréal Process countries.
  29. The Meeting expressed its deep appreciation to the Government of Argentina, represented by Ing. Torres, Dr Schlichter and the staff of INTA, and the people of Argentina for their hospitality in hosting the13th Meeting of the Montréal Process Working Group. The Meeting also appreciated the contributions of Australia, Canada and the USA in support of the meeting.

1/ The First Montréal Process Forest Report includes the 12 individual National Reports and an Overview Report.

Top of Page

Annex A

13th Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
(Montréal Process)

San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
November 26-28, 2001


Please see Who is Involved: Montréal Process Contacts

Top of Page

Annex B

Memorandum of the March 2001 Southern Cone meeting, Southern Cone Secretariat, and Framework for the Joint Task Development in the Southern Cone

Second Meeting of the Southern Cone Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation And Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
"Montreal Process"

Castro, Chile
March 19 23 of 2001


  1. The Southern Cone Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation And Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process), formed composed of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, held its Second Meeting from March 19 through March 23 of 2001.
  2. This meeting replies to a commitment by Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, entered into during the meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group held in Beijing, China, in November of 2000, in order to improve the implementation of the criteria and indicators of the Montreal Process. The workshop has focused on the following subjects:
    1. Multilateral co-operation among the Southern Cone countries
    2. Identification of common elements for the design of global projects
    3. Exchange of experiences and methodologies over implementation issues
    4. Identification of financing sources that support the efforts performed by, individually or jointly, the Southern Cone countries in order to implement the criteria and indicators.
  3. The meeting opening was in charge of Mr. Víctor Hugo Márquez, Governor of the Chiloé province, Mr. Carlos Weber, Executive Director and Mr. Pablo Bahamondez, Regional Director. The Governor gave a warm welcome and urged the attending countries to take into consideration the involvement of the civil society as a significant component for sustainability.
  4. At this Meeting 17 delegates representing Argentina, Chile and Uruguay as well as observers from the IUCN, DED and ONF and representatives from the Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF) of Regions VIII, IX and X took part. In Annex A the list of the meeting attendants is included.
  5. For the meeting development and co-ordination, the participants have elected Mr. Carlos Noton from Chile as President and Mr. Tomás Schichter from Argentina as Secretary. The meeting agenda can be found in Annex B.
  6. Presentations by the country representatives, who explained the projections and the process's state of the art, were attentively heard by attendants. Mr. Tomás Schlichter expounded on behalf of Argentina, Ms. Marcela Ochoa did the same representing Chile, and Mr. Daniel San Román spoke on behalf of Uruguay. These presentations gave the participants an impressive general outlook of the current conditions in the member countries of the Montreal Process Southern Cone Group. Presentations can be found in Annex B.
  7. All the three countries showed significant advancements regarding the work as well as common aspects favouring the joint task. These aspects are:

    1. A great interest in the implementation process's.
    2. Being neighbour countries.
    3. Facing similar troubles.
    4. Counting on an adequate critical mass of a technical scientific kind to develop indicators.
    5. Having joint work in forest technical areas (Chile-Argentina, Uruguay-Argentina, Chile-Uruguay).
    6. The three countries show concern over their native forests, their sustainable management and conservation.
    7. The three countries have valuable forest plantations, the technical and management structures of which are similar.
    8. Furthermore, in the three countries, the lack of financial resources to develop and implement indicators is a major difficulty to continue moving forward in the process.
  8. Later, the presentations concerning the proposals from each country over indicators and areas to develop a joint work were carried out. Mr. Tomás Schlichter expounded for Argentina, while Chile was represented by Mr. Carlos Noton and Uruguay by Mr. Daniel San Román. The presentation sparked and interesting debate, which made it possible to develop a methodology for the purpose of selecting the indicators to be included in the implementation strengthening project of the "Montreal Process" for the Southern Cone. The results of this work end in a proposal for the establishment of a Southern Cone Secretariat and the support to the idea of developing a project related to the selection of 15 Indicators of common interest for the member countries of the Southern Cone, corresponding to 6 of the 7 criteria of the Montreal Process. The Structure and Targets proposal can be found in Annex D.
  9. On the second day, the Co-operation Agencies joining this meeting were welcome. In the presence of theses Agencies, Mr. Carlos Noton, on behalf of the Southern Cone countries, introduced the proposals agreed upon the day before.
  10. The Co-operation Agencies reported on the different possibilities of funding and co-operation for the indicator implementation. Among the Co-operation Agencies over which data were received those from IUCN, DED and ONF are included.
  11. It is important to underline that such agencies showed an interest, from their perspective, to support both the implementation and the joint work. Likewise, it should be emphasized that the said agencies reinforced the idea of a joint presentation with regard to the financial resources, rather than the individual presentation by each country. Another element of interest was their invitation to introduce global projects covering a set of indicators, so that a given array such indicators were anticipated in order to make progress in the understanding process of sustainability.
  12. On the third day, progress was made over the discussions of previous days and the following was agreed upon:

    1. The creation of a Southern Cone Secretariat. The co-ordination will be performed in an alternate way by the three member countries and the first two years it will be taken upon by Chile.
    2. In the following three months, each country will have to perform the relevant actions in order to put in due form the secretariat establishment with the corresponding authorities.
    3. Chile has proposed that, within a maximum period of six months, it will introduce a preliminary project proposal to the parties, designed to be the foundation of a joint project of the Southern Cone countries to be submitted to institutions of international funding. Such proposal will be received by each member country for the corresponding remarks and changes.
    4. Over this period, the member countries must gather data on the indicators included in the project, in order to identify strengths and weaknesses which will make it possible to define capabilities, advancements and needs in each country.
  13. Afterwards, Mr. Andrés Meza, Head of the CONAF Environmental Co-ordination Office and a Member of the Chilean delegation, together with Mr. Richard Torres, expounded the subject "Development of Criteria and Indicators at the National and Local Level in Chile" This presentation can be found in Annex E.
  14. The proposal to organize the Third Assembly of the Montreal Process Southern Cone Group made by Uruguay was welcome.
  15. It is necessary to underline the interest shown by the participants in the users of the data produced by this process. In this way, a subject that remains to be addressed in future meetings is the informed participation of the partnership to increase the understanding about the Forest Sustainability.
  16. Mr. Daniel San Román, has suggested that the selected indicators for the joint development among the three countries be a reference framework to choose the indicators of the "2003 Report".
  17. During March 22 and 23, a field trip in various areas and current projects in Chiloé Island was carried out. This tour was focused on the existing non timber values, goods and services, giving relevance to the cultural values related to the forest ecosystems.
  18. The Montreal Process Southern Cone countries expressed their gratitude for the support given by the Corporación Nacional Forestal of Chile for the carrying out of this meeting, and acknowledged its excellent organization. Likewise, the attendants thanked the Local Government and the people of Chiloé for their hospitality as hosts of this Second Meeting of the Montreal Process Southern Cone Group.


The countries herein have agreed to create the Southern Cone Secretariat of the "Montreal Process" as a significant stage in the implementation process of this initiative in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

The countries' representatives will request the formal establishment through the institutions which are a focal point of the "Montreal Process" in each nation.

The respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs will be required to pave the way for the implementation of this Secretariat, which supports the accomplishment of the agreements and commitments set up by them under the "Statement of Santiago", of which they are signatories since February of 1995.

The general targets for the said Secretariat are:

  1. To set a common vision of the Montreal Process for the parties. To coordinate the Southern Cone parties among themselves
  2. To work out joint projects that make it easier the implementation of Criteria and Indicators under the "Montreal Process" framework.
  3. To promote the Process implementation at the domestic political and technical level of the parties involved.
  4. To capture and channel possible funding sources for the parties. The specific targets are:
    1. To support national strategies in order to implement this Process. To perform a follow-up of the implementation commitments. To promote and contribute to the multilateral co-operation.
    2. To make the data and work available among the members of the network.To promote the technical development of Criteria and Indicators under the "Montreal Process" framework, as well as homogenize the conceptual aspects.
    3. To promote and contribute to the strengthening of national technical efficiencies.
    4. To support the Process integration into the levels of sectoral political decisions.
    5. To support the subject introduction at the level of social players in general.Management, dissemination, recording of communications and contacts.To coordinate the elaboration or review of reports into Spanish.

This Secretariat must be formed by both a senior representative of the Process's Focal Point Institution and a technical representative.

Each country will create its own Secretariat, which will be the nexus between the respective country and the Southern Cone Secretariat.

The Co-ordination of the Secretariat has been suggested to rotate after a 2-year period.

As agreed upon by the countries, the Southern Cone Secretariat begins its work from April 1 of 2001 under the co-ordination of Chile. This country must propose within 3-month term a first Strategic Plan for the 2001-2003 Period.


The Second Assembly held by the Southern Cone countries answers the need to implement the "Montreal Process", which is the aim of this meeting. One of its targets is to look for common ground allowing to reinforce our involvement in the international scene as well as to monitor the sustainability of our forest ecosystems in the domestic setting.

  1. We have considered that all the indicators are significant and relevant for the process development and the sustainability of our forest ecosystems. This time, however, a set of them has been selected to be reinforced in our countries, notwithstanding the fact that work is done on other indicators in the future.
  2. There are shared interests in the three countries and we believe that these concerns are embodied by this group of indicators.
  3. Joint work reinforces our involvement in the Process since we have similar troubles, shared forest actual conditions and a qualified technical scientific team which is competent and complementary in these issues. All these factors represent a critical mass that is enough to carry out the task.
  4. The three countries have also shared successful working experiences in the area of forest ecosystems. This background guarantees a potential in the international co-operation field.
  5. Joint work contributes to the integration into the different areas of the forest sector and promotes political support.
  6. The selected set of indicators reflects the forest status as an ecosystem, and meets some relevant demands from modern society.
  7. According to previous reports carried out by each country, the chosen indicators have different levels of data. This will make it possible to work both in the creation of research baselines and the construction of indicators.
  8. Some of the selected indicators are also in consonance with other commitments from the countries involved such as: Biodiversity, Climatic Change and Desert Encroachment and CITES.
  9. We believe that work progress in these indicators will be an input in the decision-making for the public policy formulation.

The selected indicators are:

3.1 Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity

  1. Extent of area forest by forest type relative to total forest area.
  2. Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other classification systems.

3.2 Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystem

  1. Annual removal of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable.
  2. Annual removal of non-timber forest products (e.g. fur bearers, berries, mushrooms, game), compared to the level determined to be sustainable.

3.4 Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources

  1. Area and percent of forest land with significant soil erosion.

3.5 Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles

  1. Contribution of forest ecosystems to the total global carbon budget, including absorption and release of carbon (Standing biomass, coarse woody debris, peat and soil carbon).

3.6 Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies

  1. Investment in the forest sector
    1. Value investment, including investment in forest growing, forest health and management, planted forests, wood processing, recreation and tourism.
    2. Level of expenditure on research and development, and education.
  2. Cultural, social and spiritual needs and values
    1. Area and percent of forest land managed in relation to the total area of forest land to protect the range of cultural, social and spiritual needs and values.
  3. Employment and community needs
    1. Direct and indirect employment in the forest sector and forest sector employment as a proportion of total employment.

4.1 Criterion 7: Legal, Institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management


  1. Extent to which the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports the conservation and sustainable management of forest, including the extent to which it:
    1. Encourages best practices codes for forest management;
  2. Extent to which the institutional framework support the conservation and sustainable management of forest, including the capacity to:
    1. Develop and maintain human resource skills across relevant disciplines;
  3. Capacity to measure and monitor changes in the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including:
    1. Availability and extent of up-to-date data, statistics and other information important to measuring or describing indicators associated with criteria 1-7;
  4. Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest management and delivery of forest goods and services, including:
    1. Development of scientific understanding of forest ecosystem characteristics and functions;
    2. Development of methodologies to measure and integrate environmental and social costs and benefits into markets and public policies, and to reflect forest-related resource depletion or replenishment in national accounting systems.
  1. Context, Institutional Framework
  2. Common Projects, Assistance
  3. Rationale => Montreal Process
  4. Present Conditions of Montreal Process
  5. Expected Conditions (Targets) => Users, Beneficiaries (Products = 15 Indicators - dissemination)
  6. Strategy, Institutional Arrangements (Secretariat)
  7. Budget

Top of Page

Annex C

Draft Report

Country-led initiative in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests
International Expert Meeting
on the Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management

5-8 November 2001
Yokohama, Japan


A country-led initiative in support of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) entitled, "International Expert Meeting on Monitoring, Assessment And Reporting on the Progress toward Sustainable Forest Management" was held in Yokohama, Japan from 5-8 November 2001. The meeting was hosted by the Japanese Government, and the co-sponsors were Australia, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Norway, and the United States. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for exchanging views on monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR) within the UNFF context, with the aim of contributing to deliberations in support of the UNFF. The focus was on how countries could report on their progress toward sustainable forest management (SFM) and also on progress in the implementation of the Proposals for Action (PfA) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF). Representatives from 31 countries, 9 international organizations and regional processes, and 4 international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) attended the meeting.

The meeting recalled that the first session of the UNFF (UNFF 1), held in New York in June 2001, agreed that the UNFF's function of MAR would comprise the following areas:

  1. "Progress in implementing the proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF)";
  2. "Progress towards sustainable forest management of all types of forests"; and
  3. "Review of the effectiveness."

Furthermore, UNFF 1 stressed "the importance of the use of regional and national criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management as a basis for reporting on sustainable forest management."

The meeting was co-chaired by T. Kajiya from Japan and H.C. Thang from Malaysia.

The following report summarises the discussions and major highlights of the meeting and is not intended to convey consensus views. It is expected that detailed proceedings of the meeting will be prepared in advance of UNFF 2.

Opening Addresses

Mr. Tetsuo Kato, Director-General of the Forestry Agency of Japan, opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. Mr. Knut Øistad, Deputy Director General, Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Norway, thanked the Japanese Government and co-sponsors for hosting the meeting, and emphasized that the meeting will make an important contribution to deliberations at UNFF on MAR. Mr. Manoel Sobral Filho, Executive Director, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), emphasized the usefulness of criteria and indicators (C&I) for SFM, an initiative that ITTO was credited with pioneering. Mr. Jagmohan Maini, Coordinator and Head, United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) Secretariat, outlined the mandate of the UNFF on MAR and emphasized that the primary beneficiaries must be countries, that MAR should be cost effective and policy relevant, and that reporting in the UNFF context were to be based on a voluntary system.

Plenary Session: Presentations on MAR on the Progress toward SFM

The first day concentrated on experiences with MAR on SFM. Eleven presentations were given, including one overview of C&I processes, five presentations on regional and international C&I processes (ITTO, Tarapoto, Montréal, MCPFE2, Dry-Zone Africa Processes), three country case studies on C&I (Finland, Japan, Malaysia), one paper on a Brazilian forest information system, and a World Resources Institute paper on its Global Forest Watch project.

Discussions on the Presentations

Discussions on the presentations highlighted the following key points:

  • C&I for SFM have contributed to the development of a common vision of what constitutes SFM. C&I provide countries with a framework for defining SFM and assessing progress toward this goal. While the C&I framework may not be the only mechanism for MAR on SFM, it is one that has been widely accepted. Together, 9 international and regional C&I processes involve approximately 150 countries and cover most of the world's forested area;
  • Implementing C&I is complex and can be costly. Several participants noted the need for support in capacity building and financial assistance. The potential for international cooperation in implementing C&I was also mentioned;
  • A phased approach would encourage a wider implementation of C&I;
  • Undertaking participatory assessment of C&I in an open and transparent manner can lead to a strong consensus and commitment among stakeholders, but it is often a long-term exercise;
  • The monitoring and assessment of some indicators, in particular those on socio-economic functions, protective functions and biological diversity, have been found to be difficult. It was observed that, nevertheless, it might be a mistake to disregard indicators on the basis of difficulty in their monitoring and assessment;
  • In a number of countries, the results of monitoring and assessment using C&I for SFM have already been factored into domestic policy. Some participants noted the importance of having a stable and transparent political environment for the results of monitoring and assessment to have an impact;
  • A few participants noted that some specific issues (e.g., illegal trade and illegal logging) are not explicitly addressed in the indicators of some C&I processes. It was suggested that such issues could be addressed in MAR on SFM as countries choose;
  • Countries are already reporting to a number of international conventions, agreements and processes, as well as to international organizations, which maintain data and information bases related to forests. These databases and reports, which represent a rich source of existing information on forests, should be used to assess progress on SFM; and
  • It was expressed that new information technologies provide the potential to make an increasing contribution to collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on forest trends and activities.
Working Group Discussions

On the second day, two working groups discussed four questions about MAR on progress toward SFM in the UNFF context.

Question 1: Within the context of UNFF, what do you feel is the purpose of MAR on country progress towards sustainable forest management?

The participants, recognizing that all countries have some MAR systems in place for the purposes of national planning, policy formulation and budget allocation, agreed that reporting in the UNFF context should add value. The participants identified the following benefits of MAR on SFM at both, the national and international level:

  • Stimulating discussion, identification of opportunities and gaps, prioritizing actions, and building consensus within countries through the preparation of national reports;
  • Identifying concrete actions that can be taken at the bilateral, regional and international levels to facilitate country efforts to progress toward SFM;
  • Providing a framework to support informed decisions and policy guidance at all levels, and for reporting comprehensively on trends towards SFM;
  • Catalyzing broader participation of stakeholders at various levels, in particular the national and sub-national level;
  • Offering opportunities to establish an information flow focused on national processes and cross-cutting issues beyond conventional data collection;
  • Contributing to the mobilization of technical, financial and capacity-building assistance;
  • Raising public awareness of the national and global importance of forests and strengthening political commitment towards SFM;
  • Sharing experiences, identifying emerging issues and promoting mutual understanding among countries and others through reporting and discussion at UNFF of success stories and obstacles to implementation;
  • Identifying national, regional, and global trends in forests, forest condition and availability of goods and services from forests over time, as well as transboundary issues;
  • Clarifying forests' contributions to global environmental functions and facilitating reporting to global conventions and agreements related to forests;
  • Improving the global picture of forests, which can inter alia help in identifying innovative investment opportunities and positioning forests goods and services in global markets; and
  • Supporting UNFF's function of promoting implementation, including through sharing and feedback of lessons learned.

Question 2: How do you monitor, assess and report on progress towards sustainable forest management in your country (both currently and in the future)?

Participants shared their experiences on MAR on progress towards SFM in their countries. Participants at the meeting indicated that:

  • Most countries report every one or two years on some aspect of their forests. Some data are collected annually while more detailed data may be collected every 5-10 years;
  • Many countries use C&I as a basis for national reporting, and many others are building toward the use of C&I in the near future;
  • Countries tend to focus on those indicators that are most relevant to their national context;
  • Some countries have generally adopted a phased approach to implementing a system of C&I, i.e., they have begun using those indicators for which they have data and plan to expand MAR to other indicators and data and resources become available;
  • Incorporation of input from the local level can lead to better informed decisions at the national level;
  • Countries conduct MAR through a variety of processes, which can involve sub-national data collection by various parties, including NGOs and local communities;
  • To enhance credibility, MAR should involve meaningful stakeholder participation and include bottom-up aggregation of information, in particular qualitative data;
  • National forest inventories are essential to the effectiveness of MAR;
  • The use of C&I reporting is important both for influencing policymakers and for securing budgets for SFM;
  • The challenges of focusing on national MAR, including within the framework of C&I. Difficulties exist in addressing critical issues related to forests (e.g., forest values, water, biodiversity and carbon, agricultural policies, landscape level issues, and macroeconomic issues);
  • Various reporting frameworks at national, regional and international levels may not be compatible; and
  • Finding commonalities and complementarity between C&I for SFM and reporting for various other processes of environment and sustainable development will facilitate effective links and cross-sectoral relations between SFM and other policy frameworks.

Question 3: How do countries report internationally (now and in the future) on their progress towards sustainable forest management?

Participants briefly reviewed the extensive list of international conventions, agreements, organizations and instruments to which they already report on forest-related issues. They all stressed the need to reduce the existing reporting burden on countries. Country reports are not intended to be used for inter-country comparisons.

Suggestions to improve and facilitate reporting include:

  • Encouraging conventions and organizations to work together to streamline, coordinate and synchronize reporting requirements to the extent possible (e.g., the recent development by FAO, UN-ECE and ITTO of a joint questionnaire on forest products statistics);
  • Facilitating coordination of national reporting can lead to a comprehensive national report, which in the opinion of some could provide more consistent information and might be used for all international reporting on forests;
  • Maximizing the congruence of data requirements for comprehensive national and international reporting on progress towards SFM;
  • Development of national electronic interactive databases on forests where all the countries' relevant data could be stored, continually updated and would be easily accessible for reporting at all levels;
  • Regional and international C&I-processes are tools for international MAR on progress towards SFM;
  • Structuring national reporting around the C&I framework, recognizing that some countries do not use C&I in their monitoring systems, while others use national policy processes (for example, national forest programmes (nfps)); and
  • Better use of national focal points.

Participants also made other more general recommendations regarding data collection and reporting including:

  • The need to address the many gaps in forest-related data, as well as timeliness, accuracy, and reliability;
  • Advantages of collecting more data that is spatially referenced; and
  • Desire of countries to receive feedback on data and information supplied to international conventions and organizations.

Question 4: What do you think is the most appropriate structure (what to report?) and mechanism (how to report?) for countries' reporting to UNFF on their progress towards sustainable forest management?

Participants noted the importance of reporting on both SFM and on the implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA, taking into account their potential linkages. Participants expressed a variety of views on how and what countries should report on their progress toward SFM, including the following:

  • Reporting on progress towards SFM in the UNFF context should build on existing data and information including from C&I, so as not to increase the reporting burden on countries;
  • Countries may use regional and international processes to report their progress towards SFM through the use of C&I;
  • Without losing the richness of national reports stemming from nfps or other processes, there could be a focus on aggregated information and lessons learned on the specific task of working towards SFM;
  • Possibilities for synchronizing reporting for SFM should be addressed by UNFF;
  • Country reporting should be sufficiently flexible to reflect country priorities;
  • Establishment of baseline reports enable better measurement of progress;
  • Inclusion of tangible commitments by countries is important to gain credibility, as is evidence of stakeholder involvement and reliability of information;
  • Progress toward SFM should be keyed to the thematic agenda of individual UNFF sessions; be solution-oriented and focused on lessons learned or specific obstacles;
  • Encourage the focus of reporting on SFM to be linked to UNFF agenda items, while allowing comprehensive national reports on SFM including emerging or priority issues;
  • Early submission of written country reports on progress toward SFM would allow the Secretariat and/or CPF members to provide each UNFF session with a compilation that analyzed trends and common successes and obstacles while ensuring that the original complete country reports were made widely available; and
  • Reports should be, where possible, transmitted electronically and posted on the internet.
Plenary Session: Presentations on MAR on the Progress in Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action

The third day focused on MAR on implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA. Four presentations were made, two on country experiences (Australia and Indonesia), one on the use of C&I to report on PfA, and one on a proposal by UNDP and FAO to support countries in their assessment of PfA and identification of actions.

Australia had undertaken a comprehensive exercise to analyze all the PfA and produced a guidebook that sought to summarize and group the proposals to facilitate implementation. Australia then analyzed the relevance of all the PfA to Australia's context, evaluated the extent of their implementation, and prioritized the need for future action.

Discussions on the Presentations

The discussions highlighted the following points:

  • The Australian guidebook could be usefully drawn on by other countries to help determine their own priorities and methodology for implementation;
  • C&I could be a useful framework for monitoring, assessment and reporting on PFA implementation. The commonality of criteria across international processes facilitate mutual comprehension of efforts to implement the PfA. In addition, a number of proposals directly correspond to specific indicators in a range of processes. In other cases, indicators could be used as a point of departure, or framework, for MAR;
  • There were differing views on the conceptual relevance and feasibility of using C&I as a means of monitoring, assessing and reporting on progress in the implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA;
  • The framework used by countries to monitor, assess and report on implementation may vary, as illustrated by the fact that some use C&I and some use nfps; and
  • The need was noted for further capacity-building, training and financial assistance to help support efforts to monitor, assess and report on implementation of IPF/IFF PfA.
Working Group Discussions

Two working groups discussed two questions related to MAR on implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA.

Question 1: What aspects (purposes, approaches and methods) could countries take into account when carrying out monitoring and assessment of the implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action?

  • IPF/IFF PfA are used politically and strategically to inform and refine national policy processes and development;
  • Implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA is a means to progress toward SFM, rather than an end in itself;
  • Monitoring and assessment can help identify priorities, successes, needed actions and potential for collaboration;
  • Monitoring and assessment methods and processes need to be transparent and involve all stakeholders;
  • The Six-Country Initiative and the Australian exercise, as well as grouping by the 16-elements of UNFF, are useful tools for countries to systematically assess the relevance of PfA and prioritize their implementation in their domestic context;
  • Monitoring and assessment may be integrated into nfps or other national policy processes related to forests;
  • Independent auditing of country implementation of IPF/IFF PfA may be a useful tool to demonstrate credibility;
  • International and regional organizations, processes and bodies could facilitate countries' consultation and initiatives on MAR on the implementation of PfA;
  • The CPF members and international cooperation can play a role in assisting countries in monitoring and assessment of IPF/IFF PfA;
  • Support CPF members organizations to work towards reducing international reporting demands on countries;
  • C&I can be a useful framework for monitoring, assessment and reporting, but do not cover all of the PfA;
  • Not all countries monitor and assess the implementation of IPF/IFF PfA in a separate process; those that do so, vary in regularity;
  • In national assessment of PfA, approaches vary widely in the extent of the process, as well as in depth of the dialogue; while some countries assess the PfA only once, others may revisit them periodically; and
  • Country focal points can facilitate monitoring and assessment.

Question 2: Based on country experiences with implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action, would creating voluntary guidelines facilitate country monitoring, assessment and reporting in the UNFF context?

  • The following range of options for how countries could report to the UNFF on their implementation of the PfA emerged from the discussion:
    1. Annual reports on the status of implementation of the full range of IPF/IFF PfA;
    2. Annual reports focused on the implementation of those PfA related to the agenda of each UNFF-session (with the option to report more broadly if desired); and
    3. A single report to UNFF 5 on the implementation of all PfA;
  • Many participants were in favor of option (b), based in part on its likely contribution to focusing session discussion and debate;
  • Some underscored that user-friendly recommendations already existed on the systematic assessment of PfA and the monitoring and assessment of their implementation (Practitioners' Guide of the Six-Country Initiative; the Australian exercise, the 16 thematic elements of the Plan of Action of the UNFF);
  • The importance of inviting major groups to report was noted, and several experts recalled the fact that CPF members and other organizations and actors were also expected to report on IPF/IFF PfA implementation;
  • To make UNFF sessions more constructive and effective:
    • Many believed the establishment of some type of flexible guidelines for reporting on PfA implementation to UNFF are needed. Some underscored that such guidelines should allow for countries to report using the framework of their preferred national policy processes;
    • The possible use of a simple Secretariat-provided "Table of Contents"/ questionnaire to organize presentations was noted;
    • A proposal was made that countries report to UNFF on the methodological issues related to carrying out MAR on implementation of PfA;
    • The point was made, however, that countries should have latitude to focus on the issues they considered most relevant, with emphasis on success stories as well as obstacles and gaps;
    • Timely provision of advance written reports might usefully permit the Secretariat or CPF members to compile aggregated reports that identified emerging trends; and
    • The original complete reports should be made widely available, including electronically on the Internet.
Plenary Session: Presentations on MAR on the Progress toward SFM

Presentations were made on the conclusions of the working groups on MAR on progress towards SFM and MAR on implementation of the IPF/IFF PfA.

Discussions on the Presentations

Discussions on the presentations highlighted the following key points:

MAR towards progress of SFM
  • It should be noted that there is an overarching goal of MAR in the context of SFM that has not been discussed in any of the working groups: through a comprehensive MAR-process on SFM that is thoroughly communicated, foresters can make a comprehensive, holistic story about the role and functions of forests, and they can demonstrate how productive and protective functions can be combined. It allows reporting on all functions of the forest, and not only on specific aspects (e.g. trade to ITTO, forest cover to FAO, forest biodiversity to CBD, etc). The fact that MAR towards progress of SFM can serve as a comprehensive voice on forests in all relevant national and international bodies should not be underestimated.
  • There is also a role of MAR in:
    • Articulating tangible, measurable target, milestone's and goals in country-level SFM policies (e.g. a national goal of "expanding protected area coverage of forests from 5 to 10£%, by 2005"); and
    • Measuring and reporting on progress towards these goals and targets.
  • MAR is useful for both, the identification of an achievement towards SFM and the identification of gaps and threats towards that objective. The identification of key indicators can help to make this identification in a rationale manner.
  • MAR based on a set of key indicators is also useful for those countries that do not have yet the human and financial resources to carry on a comprehensive C&I process. It was recommended that the development of key indicators need thorough attention.

MAR towards progress of IPF/IFF Proposals for Actions

  • Some participants observed that there was not enough emphasis in the discussion of both working groups on the relative role NFPs can play in MAR. In a lot of countries, the NFP-framework provides a useful basis for MAR.
  • The importance of C&I was recognized also for the reporting of MAR towards progress of IPF/IFF Proposals for Actions, however, C&I processes alone are unable to all the information that is necessary. It was also reiterated that MAR could be enhanced through a phased process.

An open ended drafting committee met the evening of the 7th November and between 11.00 and 14.30 on the 8th November. They drew together a report of the meeting, which reflected the presentations and discussions in plenary and the work of the two working groups, for presentation to plenary on the afternoon of the 8th.


Participants considered the draft report and following a few amendments were satisfied that this reflect the full range of views expressed during the meeting.


In his closing remarks Mr. Jagmohan Maini thanked Japan, in particular Mr. Hashirimoto for organising this initiative in support of the UNFF. He believed that the issue of MAR had long-term implications and was critical to demonstrate progress in the sustainable management of forests. The report of this meeting would enrich the deliberations at the 2nd session of the UNFF and would make a significant contribution to the informal discussions before the 2nd session on the ToR for the Ad Hoc Expert Group on MAR.

Co-chair Mr. Hooi Chiew Thang welcomed this frank exchange of views on this important issue and underlined the need to carry this work forward. In closing the session Co-chair Mr. Tatsuya Kajiya thanked participants and speakers for sharing their experiences and views on this issue, noting that the presentations and discussions had elaborated various approaches to the different aspects of monitoring, assessment and reporting. He concluded the meeting by the thanking the co-sponsors, Australia, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Norway and the United States for the support they had provided Japan.

The participants expressed their gratitude to the Governments of Australia, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Norway and the United States of America. The participants also extended their deep appreciation to the Government and the people of Japan for hosting the meeting as well as for their kind hospitality.

2/ MCPFE: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe

Top of Page

Annex D

Indicators to Be Included in Highlights on Trends Section of 2003 Overview Report

Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity

1.1.a Extent of area by forest type

Criterion 2: Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems

2.a Area of forest land available for timber production

Criterion 3: Maintenance of Forest Health and Vitality

3.a Area and percent of forest affected by processes and processes beyond the range of historic variation, e.g. by insects, disease, competition from exotic species, fire, storm, land clearance, permanent flooding, salinisation, domestic animals (NOTE: The focus will be on fire only.)

Criterion 4: Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources

4.b Area and percent of forest land managed primarily for protective functions, e.g. watersheds, flood protection, avalanche protection, riparian zones

Criterion 5: Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles

5.a Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate by forest type, age , class, successional stage

Criterion 6: Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socio-Economic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Societies

6.5.a Employment and Community Needs: Direct and indirect employment in the forest sector and forest sector employment as a proportion of total employment

Criterion 7: Legal, Institutional and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management

7.4.b Capacity to Measure and Monitor Changes in the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forests: Scope, frequency and statistical reliability of forest inventories, assessments, monitoring and other relevant information

Top of Page

Annex E

Schedule of 2003 Overview and National Report Preparations
Date Task
30 May 2002 Country data for the 7 indicators to be included in Overview Report "Highlights on Trends" submitted to TAC Convenor by MPWG members
1 July Individual draft national reports submitted in official national languages to Liaison Office for web posting for informal sharing among countries
July TAC Meeting to draft products (Introduction, Background, and Highlights on Trends sections) using 7 indicators. (TAC meeting would be coordinated with the timing of the ICCI meeting as appropriate; Mexico to host meeting)
ASAP After TAC Meeting, TAC Convenor distributes draft Introduction, Background and composite Highlights on Trends sections to MPWG members for review and comment
1 Oct MPWG members submit comments on these sections to TAC Convenor
15 Oct TAC Convenor circulates revised draft of these sections to MPWG members

14th MPWG Meeting:

  • Finalizes Introduction, Background and Highlights on Trends sections
  • Agrees on content of "Conclusions and Next Steps"
  • Executive summary is due
  • Liaison Office circulates draft text of Conclusions and Next Steps and the Executive Summary of 2003 Overview Report to MPWG members for review and comment.
  • MPWG members submit comments to Liaison Office.
  • Liaison Office finalizes Conclusions and Next Steps and Executive Summary.
  • Overview Report ready for printing.
21 Sept 2003 Copies of Overview Report distributed at 12th World Forestry Congress.

Top of Page

Annex F

13th Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
(Montréal Process)

San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
November 26-28, 2001


November 28, 2001


To provide a communication framework for the Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG), its member countries and the Liaison Office to increase recognition among a wide range of domestic and international audiences of the importance of criteria and indicators (C&I) and the Montréal Process, and to better communicate progress by member countries in implementing the Montréal Process C&I.


  • Increase public awareness of the Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG) and importance of criteria and indicators (C&I) in promoting sustainable forest management (SFM)
  • Highlight MPWG and member country contributions to leadership in progress toward SFM through the use of C&I
  • Strengthen political commitment of member countries to implementation of Montréal Process C&I
  • Improve communication among MPWG member countries
  • Facilitate implementation of C&I as a critical tool for forest assessment, monitoring, and reporting
  • Widely communicate progress in implementation of the C&I by member countries
  • Facilitate and participate in collaboration with other C&I processes and relevant international/regional organisations


The following key messages promote a basic understanding of the Montréal Process and should be incorporated into publications and other forms of communication whenever appropriate.

  • Forests provide essential environmental, economic, and social benefits to people around the world at local, national and global levels.
  • Sustainable forest management constitutes the contribution of forests to sustainable development.
  • "Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management" are tools to assess the state of and trends in forests at the national level.
  • C&I are not intended as performance standards or to assess directly conditions at the forest management unit level. However, they can provide a complementary framework for better forest management and various certification systems.
  • Criteria characterize the essential elements of SFM; indicators are ways to measure these elements.
  • C&I are intended to provide a common understanding of what is meant by sustainable forest management.
  • The approach to forest management reflected in the C&I is the management of forests as ecosystems.
  • The MPWG includes 12 member countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, People's Republic of China, Republic of Korea, Russia, United States, Uruguay) representing 90% of the world's temperate and boreal forests and 60% of all forests. Each country is unique in terms of the quantity, quality, characteristics and descriptions of its forests.
  • The MPWG countries are committed to implementation of C&I and progress toward SFM.
  • MPWG member countries have endorsed (via the Santiago Declaration) a comprehensive set of 7 criteria and 67 indicators to inform decision-making and promote SFM.
  • Multiple stakeholder participation is important to the application of the Montréal Process criteria and indicators.
  • The MPWG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has produced a number of documents that provide technical and scientific advice on C&I implementation and reporting.
  • The first Montréal Process Forest Report (Overview Report and twelve national reports) prepared using the Montréal Process C&I will be released and distributed at the World Forestry Congress in 2003. These and future periodic reports will help decision-makers and the public in member countries.
  • MPWG C&I will be refined over time based on better science and information and changing public demands.
  • The MPWG and its member countries make a significant contribution and are influential in the larger international forest policy dialogue.
  • The Montréal Process is one of several comparable international and regional criteria and indicators processes, which together involve more than 150 countries.
  • For further information, contact Liaison Office or check web site (

4. Related Country Messages

Relevant information, web sites, and national and sub-national publications, including national inventories and data management publications, should:

  • Include recognition of the country as a member of MPWG.
  • Outline benefits of membership. For example, membership/participation:
    • Can assist a country to address international and national sustainability issues.
    • Provides an additional tool to help improve in country forest management and therefore the quality of life for all people.
    • Provides member countries with opportunities to participate and share ideas on forests in an international context and dialogue.
    • Provides recognition of activities and programs undertaken to advance sustainable forest management.
    • Provides a framework for domestic stakeholders (e.g. government, private owners, academic and research organizations) to coordinate their work.
  • Highlight member country activities within the MPWG. For example, participation in MPWG:
  • Include as many of the above Montréal Process "key messages" as possible.


  • While the Montréal Process C&I are national level C&I, they can provide a framework for developing subnational indicators.
  • The Montréal Process respects national sovereignty. The MPWG is a group of like-minded countries, not a binding instrument.
  • Implementation of the Montréal Process C&I represents a challenge:
  • Developing partnerships
  • Tough questions on how to collect data
  • Expense of data collection
  • Lack of public awareness/understanding of C&I


  1. Montréal Process Working Group member countries and TAC members
  2. Domestic audiences within countries
    • National and sub-national policy makers
    • Forest owners, industry, buyers groups, labor, environmental groups, indigenous people, local communities
    • Other forest owners, managers
    • Professional, scientific and academic community
    • General public
    • Media: journals, newspapers, magazines, etc.
  3. International Community
    • Other C&I processes, especially the Pan-European Process
    • Relevant International organisations: FAO, ITTO, UNFF, etc.
    • International NGOs and industry association


  1. Official Montréal Process documents - To be distributed and posted freely
  2. Unofficial TAC papers - To be distributed/posted as agreed by MPWG and with standard disclaimer
  3. Montréal process web site - For posting of:
    • Official documents (brochures, reports, aide memoires, technical notes) in available languages
    • Unofficial TAC papers (with standard disclaimer)
    • Upcoming Montréal Process events, e.g. workshops
    • Links to other relevant web sites: Member countries, C&I processes, international organizations
    • For easy availability of Montréal Process publications and information to policy makers, constituencies and the public in member countries worldwide
  4. Member countries
    • Promote publications through national networks of communications.
    • Promote Montréal Process messages and communicate ongoing activities when participating in relevant regional/ international meetings
    • Report perspectives on meetings attended to the MPWG
    • Maintain the quality of the country website linked to the Montréal Process website
    • Translate important Montréal Process documents into national language to facilitate domestic use.
  5. Liaison Office
    • Distributes official MPWG publications on request
    • Maintains up-to-date web site
    • Reports progress on implementation of the communications plan to MPWG meetings.


To be developed by the Liaison Office on a case-by-case basis


The effectiveness of this communications plan should be reviewed two years after approval. In light of:

  • Perceptions of target audiences on the commitment and leadership of the MPWG and member countries in implementing C&I and SFM
  • Rate of demand for and distribution of materials on the Montréal Process,including website visits.
  • Media coverage, positive mention of C&I, Montréal Process
  • Maintenance or enhancement of interest in and level of participation in MPWG meetings by representatives of member countries, other C&I processes, international organisations, non-government interests, etc.
  • Invitations to the Liaison Office and member countries to participate in other for a on C&I
  • Growing international support for C&I implementation.
ANNEX A Publications and Other Available Information
Date Publication / Information

The Montréal Process web site (

This web site presents information on the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests: The Montréal Process. Links are provided to all member countries, as well as to other international initiatives working with criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.

April 2000

Montréal Process Year 2000 Progress Report - Progress and Innovation in Implementing Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests

This Year 2000 Report on the Montréal Process incorporates input from individual countries and highlights accomplishments in implementing the criteria and indicators of the Montréal Process, including capacity-building, data collection, forest management, institutional and regulatory policy development and technical co-operation.

December 1999

Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Second Edition)

This is the second printing of a comprehensive set of criteria and indicators for forest conservation and sustainable management. This set of criteria and indicators has been agreed to by twelve nations who continue to work to implement and report on the basis of the agreed criteria and indicators.

December 1999

Forests for the Future: Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators

This is a brochure explaining the origin and purpose of the international policy exercise known as The Montréal Process on criteria and indicators for conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests outside Europe.

August 1997

First Approximation Report of the Montréal Process

This report presents a general overview of the status of data and the ability to report on the Montreal Process criteria and indicators. Although key issues identified for each criterion in the comprehensive country reports are summarized, the report does not include detailed information on indicators nor country-specific comment. The Report includes background on the criteria and indicators, information concerning the implementation of the Process, overview summaries of the key issues identified for each criterion and consideration of future direction.

February 1997

The Montréal Process Progress Report

This Progress Report incorporates input from individual countries and highlights data availability for indicators in each country and the current capacity of countries to report on the indicators.

February 1995

Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests

In February 1995 in Santiago, Chile, representatives of twelve countries, which together represent 90 percent of the world's temperate and boreal forests (Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and the United States of America), endorsed a comprehensive set of criteria and indicators for forest conservation and sustainable management for use by their respective policy-makers. This document presents these criteria and indicators, together with the statement of endorsement known as the "Santiago Declaration".

Top of Page