Working Group Meeting Report
8th Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
Montréal Process
Canberra, Australia
June 5, 1996
- The Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (Montreal Process) held its eighth meeting in Canberra, Australia on 3-7 June 1996.
- The meeting was opened by the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson MP spoke at the Montreal Process dinner held at the National Gallery of Australia.
- The Montreal Process includes Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, the United States of America and Uruguay, which together represent about 90 percent of the world’s temperate and boreal forests, as well as areas of tropical forests.
- Representatives of all twelve countries of the Montreal Process attended the meeting as well as representatives of the Helsinki Process, the Tarapoto Process, a number of other countries, intergovernmental and non-government organisations, and Australian agencies and other interest groups. A list of participants is at Attachment A.
- The meeting elected the following officers: Chair, Mr. Geoff Gorrie (Australia); Co-Chair, Mr Colin Griffiths (Australia); Rapporteur, Dr Jann Williams (Australia); Chair for Workshop A on "Indicator Status and Data Issues", Dr David Brand (Australia); Rapporteurs for Workshop A, Ms Kathryn Buchanan (Canada) and Dr Jann Williams (Australia); chair for Workshop B on "First Approximation Report", Mr José Antonio Prado Donoso (Chile); Rapporteurs for Workshop B, Ms Ulla Karjalainen (Australia) and Ms Dianne Mead (Australia).
- The meeting welcomed presentations by representatives of the Helsinki Process, the Tarapoto Process, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations’ Taskforce on Sustainability and the Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management to be held in Helsinki in August 1996. The meeting also welcomed a presentation by Australia on their forests, forest policy and work on criteria and indicators.
- The meeting welcomed the report "Status of data and ability to report on the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators" by the Montreal Process Liaison Office summarising the key issues raised by countries on data availability and the capacity to report on the criteria and indicators. See Attachment B.
- The Liaison Office report indicated that data availability varies among countries but that most countries have data available for 50% or more of the 67 indicators. Data availability is also highly variable among the seven criteria with most data being available for Criterion 2 (Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems) and Criterion 7 (Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management). Data are least available for Criterion 3 (Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality) and Criterion 4 (Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources). Data are also readily available for some indicators within Criterion 1 (Conservation of biological diversity) and Criterion 6 (Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies). The quality of data is linked with the availability and is generally good for Criteria 1, 2, 6 and 7.
- The Liaison Office report also indicated that the capacity to report on indicators also varies with most countries able to report on many of the indicators in Criteria 1, 2, 6 and 7. Most countries had problems with reporting on Criteria 3 and 4. Many countries indicated difficulty in reporting on Criterion 5 (Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles).
- Regarding data availability and reporting capacity, the Liaison Office report identified the need for further definitions, new research systems and reporting methods for many indicators, new monitoring systems, and enhanced research and development to improve reporting capacities.
- The Montreal Process countries agreed to establish an informal ad-hoc technical advisory committee to provide technical advice to the Montreal Process Working Group as requested. Countries will submit comments on the draft terms of reference at Attachment C as well as the name of their representative to the Liaison Office by 15 July 1996.
- The meeting agreed on the content, format and schedule for preparing a report on "Progress on Implementation of the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests" as set out in Attachment D, for distribution at the fourth meeting of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development’s Intergovernmental Panel on forests in New York early in 1997.
- The meeting agreed on the content, format and schedule for preparing a "First Approximation Report by the Montreal Process Countries on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests" as set out in Attachment E, for distribution at the eleventh World Forestry Congress in Antalya, Turkey on 13-22 October 1997.
- The meeting also agreed that there was a need to be transparent in methods used when reporting on criteria and indicators and that countries should provide a narrative for indicators explaining how data was sourced and used in reporting.
- The Montreal Process countries agreed that Australia should make a presentation on behalf of the Working Group on progress of the Montreal Process at the Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management being held in Helsinki, august 19-21, 1996.
- The Meeting agreed to distribute a copy of this Aide Memoire and, if appropriate, the presentation to the Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators, at the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests to be held in Geneva from 9-20 September 1996.
- The meeting reaffirmed that the procedure for countries to join the Montreal 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 Liaison Office, which will inform the other Montreal Process countries.
- The Montreal Process countries agreed to meet informally on the margins of the Intergovernmental Seminar on Criteria and Indicators and the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. Canada as the Liaison Office will consult with countries regarding their attendance at the meetings and will make appropriate arrangements.
- The Montreal process countries welcomed the tentative offer from Korea to host the ninth meeting of the Working Group in early 1997 after the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. Korea will inform Canada of specific details of dates and venue in due course.
- The Montreal Process countries expressed their strong interest in China considering hosting the tenth meeting of the Working Group after the 11th World Forestry Congress.
- Recognising that four members of the Working Group are native Spanish speakers, it was agreed to have simultaneous Spanish interpretation at future meetings of the Working Group whenever possible.
- The Montreal Process countries recognised 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 Montreal Process.
- The meeting expressed their thanks to Australia for their hospitality in hosting the Eighth Meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group.
Attachment A
8th Meeting of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
(Montréal Process)
Canberra, Australia
June 5, 1996
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Please see Who is Involved: Montréal Process Contacts
Attachment B
Report of Workshop A
- Indicator status and data issues -
(Information on overheads)
The following is a copy of the summary provided on overheads of Workshop A held at the Eighth Montreal Process meeting on the morning of June 4 1996. A more detailed report is also available.
New Zealand proposal
- endorsed need to be transparent
- countries will provide narrative for each indicator explaining how the data was sourced and used.
Major issues raised by Liaison Office (LO)
- drop fourth point (an issue for discussion at the national level).
"Technical Working Group" (TWG)
- broad representation of countries and NGOs/IGOs (where appropriate)
- informal
- task oriented
- will cover:
- definitions
- interpretation (of indicators)
- technical issues of measurement i.e.scale/proposed approaches to measurement
- a sub-group consisting of Australia/NZ/USA/Korea/IUFRO was asked to prepare a paper on the terms of reference of the Technical Working Group.
Issues for further elaboration by the TWG (identified by Workshop A).
- definitions (those identified in Attachment B and others)
- most "challenging indicators" (identified on page 18/20 of LO report)
- specific indicator issues:
- forest types
- fragmentation
- annual removal of wood products
- annual removal of non-timber products
- criteria 3 and 4: need for innovative ways to measure/monitor
- criterion 5: examine existing protocols/consistency amongst countries in reporting
- the TWG will report to Montreal Process Working Group; the report will become part of the Appendix to the publication Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests.
Further analysis of indicators
The LO will request countries to recategorise indicators reported as high/impossible/not rated as:
- not applicable
- not available
- available only as narrative
- where definitions need resolving
The LO will distribute a request for this information by the end of the Eighth Meeting with responses required by July 5 1996.
Report of Workshop A
- Indicator status and data issues -
At the plenary session of the Eighth Montreal Process meeting a number of issues were raised to be addressed by the Workshops. The following text covers some of the issues raised in the discussion during Workshop A held on the morning of June 4 1996.
New Zealand proposal
New Zealand put forward a proposal to the Montreal Process Group to consider a methodology that involved areally weighted aggregation of data from different forest groups (i.e. forest type; public versus private land).
The original New Zealand proposal was modified to:
"address how to use input from disparate sources and generate one reporting parameter; the Montreal Process may benefit by making the process more transparent i.e. countries provide narrative of how they aggregate data."
The Workshop:
- endorsed the need to be transparent;
- agreed countries will provide narrative for each indicator explaining how the data was sourced and used.
Major issues raised by Liaison Office (LO)
The LO report identified 5 major issues cited as important impediments to the availability of data and to their reporting capacities. It was decided to drop the fourth point which stated >monitoring systems must be standardized as soon as possible in order to provide comparable trend data. This was identified as an issue for discussion at the national level rather than as the Montreal Process group collectively.
"Technical Working Group" (TWG)
It was agreed that a TWG should be established and that it should:
- have broad representation of countries and NGOs/IGOs (where approapriate)
- be informal
- be task oriented
- will cover:
- definitions
- interpretation of indicators
- technical issues of measurement i.e.scale/proposed approaches to measurement
- a sub-group consisting of Australia/NZ/USA/Korea/IUFRO was asked to prepare a discussion paper on the terms of reference of the Technical Working Group.
Issues for further elaboration by the TWG (identified by Workshop A)
Issues have been identified from a number of sources, with some mentioned more than once in the following summary.
- it was agreed that definitions of terms in several indicators needed clarifying. These included the following identified specifically by countries in the LO report:
- forest dependent species;
- biodiversity;
- successional class/stage;
- merchantable and non-merchantable;
- exotic;
- norms;
- diminished biological components;
- vitality;
- multipliers (with respect to indirect employment) [need for agreement];
- forest dependent communities;
- subsistence (i.e. forest land used for subsistence purposes).
and others, including those identified in Criterion 6:
- research and development reporting (i.e. what is research?; how to incorporate private investment);
- new and improved technologies;
- forest dependent communities;
- employment (especially the use of employment multipliers);
- non-consumptive use forest values;
- subsistence.
Most "challenging" indicators identified in the LO report. These are:
Criterion 1
- fragmentation of forest types;
- number of forest dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range;
- population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their range.
Criterion 2
- annual removal of non-timber forest products, compared to the level determined to be sustainable.
Criterion 3
- area and percent of forest affected by processes or agents beyond the range of historic variation
- area and percent of forest land subjected to levels of specific air pollution;
- area and percent of forest land with diminished biological components indicative of changes in fundamental ecological processes.
Criterion 4
- area and percent of forest land with significant soil erosion;
- percent of stream kilometers in forested catchments in which stream flow and timing has significantly deviated from the historic range of variation
- area and percent of forest cover with significantly diminished soil organic matter and/or changes in other soil chemical properties;
- area and percent of forest land with significant compaction of changes in soil physical properties resulting from human activities;
- percent of water bodies in forest areas with significant variance of biological diversith from the historic range of variability;
- percent of water bodies in forest areas with significant variation from the historic range of variability in pH, dissolved oxygen, levels of chemical, sedimentation or temperature change;
- area and percent of forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent toxic substances.
Criterion 6
- supply and consumption/use of non-wood products;
- number and type of facilities available for general recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area;
- number of visitors attributed to recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area;
- non-consumptive use of forest values;
- viability and adaptability to change economic conditions, of forest dependent communities, including indigenous communities;
- area and percent of forest land used for subsistence purposes.
Specific indicator issues discussed in the workshop were:
- forest types: a need was identified for a comparison of how different countires intend to report on forest types; scale issues are involved i.e. broad picture vs. capturing biodiversity at a finer scale (need for country by country assessment of forest types and how they correlate with biodiversity.
- fragmentation: recognise differences between countries i.e. small, highly populated countries may have different issues than large, sparsely populated areas i.e. Siberia.
- annual removal of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable: discussion of sustained yield versus sustainable; definitional issues raised; examination of approaches being used required.
- annual removal of non-timber products: identify scope, meaning, measurement, scale and periodicity to allow countries to move ahead.
- criteria 3 and 4: need for new and innovative ways to measure/monitor issues related to forest health and vitality and soil and water conservation.
- Criterion 3: issue of historic variation is important to address.
- Criterion 4: determining emergent issues from information generally collected at the forest management unit can cause difficulties; the use of surrogates/simpler measures was raised; need to examine ways to generate feasible indicators in near-term (interim measures to move criteria forward).
- criterion 5: examine existing protocols (i.e. being adopted by the IPCC)/encourage consistency amongst countries in reporting.
- the TWG will report to Montreal Process Working Group; its recommendations will become part of the Appendix to the publication: Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests.
For each of the issues referred to by the TWG it was felt necessary to clarify definitions, mechanisms to address the issues and a discussion of scale.
Further analysis of indicators
It was raised that it would be useful if more informaiton was provided for indicators rated as "high", "impossible" or not rated at all.
The LO will request countries to recategorise indicators reported as >high/impossible/not rated as:
- not applicable*
- not available
- available only as narrative
- where definitions need resolving
The LO will distribute a request for this information by the end of the Eighth Meeting with responses required by July 5 1996.
* The view was put that it was essential that countries explain clearly why indicators were "not applicable" and ideally provide data on this. This information would further clarify the reasons behind why countries felt particular indicators were not relevant.
Attachment C
MEMO
Date: 5 June 1996
To: Montreal Process Member Countries
From: Liaison Office
Subject: Clarification of information in country data assessments
At the Eighth Meeting of the Montreal Process Group, concerns were expressed regarding the characterization of indicators in the Liaison Office report, "Status of Data and Ability to Report on the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators".
The data assessment format included a column in which indicators were to be characterized according to countries abilities to report (column 7). Several countries used the option of characterizing indicators as "difficult", "impossible" or did not characterize difficulty of reporting at all.
It has become evident that the information provided in column 7 (Difficulty of reporting) will be more useful if these "difficult", "impossible", and unrated responses can be clarified.
The Liaison Office therefore requests that member countries review those indicators which they characterized as "difficult", "impossible" or did not characterize and provide a revised response based on the following classification:
- information not available
- information available as narrative
- indicator not applicable (explain why)
- definitional issue needs to be clarified (specify the issue).
We would appreciate submission of this revised information by 5 July. This information should be provided in written or text format. Table format would be suitable but not necessary.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
DRAFT II
INFORMAL AD HOC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Montreal Process Working Group (MPWG) agrees to establish an ad hoc Technical Advisory Committee to provide technical advice to the MPWG. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is tasked by the following terms of reference.
- The TAC is asked to consider and provide advice to the MPWG on the following:
- Definitions for the following terms:
- biodiversity
- successional stage
- age class
- indirect employment
- forest dependent communities
- merchantable tree species
- non-merchantable tree species
- exotic species
- diminished biological components
- forest ecosystem vitality
- subsistence
Existing definitions will be used as extensively as possible.
- How to use forest type as a means to effectively characterize biodiversity.
- It is recognised that each individual country should develop its own protocols to be used in the preparation of the first approximation reports. It is recommended that the TAC develop specific proposals for text inclusions in the Appendix "Explanatory Notes on Selected Criteria and Indicators" for consideration by MPWG. The text should consist of an approach to gathering data that will fulfill the intent of the indicator. The indicators to be addressed are:
- Definitions for the following terms:
| Criteria | Indicators |
|---|---|
| Conservation of biological diversity | Ecosystem diversity: 1e - Fragmentation of forest types. Genetic diversity: 1a - Number of forest dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range. 1b - Population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their range. |
| Maintenance of productive capacity of forest | 2e - Annual removal of non-timber forest products, compared to the level determined to be sustainable. |
| Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality | all indicators |
| Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources | all indicators |
| Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles | all indicators |
| Maintenance and enhancement of long term benefits to meet the needs of society | Production & consumption: f - Supply and consumption/use of non-multiple socio-economic wood products. b - Number and type of facilities available of society for general recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area. c - Number of visitors attributed to recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area. Cultural, social and spiritual needs and values: c - Viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest dependent communities, including indigenous communities. d - Area and percent of forest land used for subsistence purposes. |
- The TAC will be comprised of not more than 15 people with at least one from each member country. Participants from other interest parties might include IUFRO, representatives of other C&I processes, and/or the NGO community. The TAC should draw on the work of other experts and relevant groups to the extent possible.
- The TAC will submit its findings on definitions to the Liaison Office by 30 September 1996. Finding on dot points two and three will be submitted, at the earliest practicable date, but no later than the ninth MPWG meeting.
- The TAC will work to the extent possible through electronic conferencing to facilitate communication and reduce costs.
- Operating and travel costs of the participants will be met by the participants themselves. Adequate resourcing is expected to involve 0.5+ person year per country.
MPWG countries should submit their views on the TAC proposal and the name of their representative to the TAC by 15 July to the Liaison Office. Dr David Brand, Australia, has been invited to serve as the TAC Convenor. Australia will notify the Liaison Office of Dr Brand's availability by 15 July.
OUTCOMES B, WORKSHOP B
- The Workshop agreed that two reports should be produced, a Progress Report and a First Approximation Report.
- It will not be possible to produce the First Approximation Report in time for Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF4), due to the extensive data reporting involved. However, it was considered that the IPF is an important international forum and the Montreal Process should not miss the opportunity to provide such a key audience with a progress report.
- The workshop agreed on the content, format and schedule for both reports.
- It was agreed that the Liaison Office should produce both reports.
- The first report will be a progress report to be presented to IPF4 in January/February 1997. The Report must be ready in December 1996.
- The agreed title for this Report is: "Progress on Iimplementation of the Montreal Process on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests".
- This report will provide an updated overview of the Montreal Process. The report is not intended to provide technical detail. The target audience is seen to be policy makers and interested parties.
- The second report will be the "First Approximation Report by the Montreal Process Countries on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests" (Agreement to produce such a report was reached at the 7th Meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group, New Zealand.)
- It was agreed that the First Approximation Report be available at the world Forestry Congress in Turkey, October 1997.
- It was agreed that the final report(s) be made available in the languages of member countries. However, in view of the tight timetables it is suggested that this be done after the target dates for completion have been reached.
- It was agreed that a meeting of the Montreal Process Working Group be held during preparation of the First Approximation Report, to enable countries to discuss issues/difficulties relating to reporting. This would be the ninth meeting of the Group, and would be held after IPF4.
- The First Approximation Report is primarily a report of and for the Montreal process countries. It is therefore suggested that the Montreal Process Working Group meet to discuss the Final Report after the World Forestry Congress, October 1997. This would be the tenth meeting of the Working Group.
- Members should consider providing the Liaison Office with guidance concerning presentation of the reports.
- Members may wish to consider how the Progress Report may best be presented to IPF (for example at a satellite meeting).
Attachment D
Progress on Implementation of the Montreal Process on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests
(December 1996)
FRAMEWORK
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2 pages)
2. INTRODUCTION (1 page)
- including the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and adoption of the Santiago Declaration
- short description of Montreal Process countries, highlighting the diversity among them in such things as forest types, socio-economic circumstances and institutional arrangements
3. BACKGROUND (2 pages)
- Description of criteria and indicators, including conceptual basis for criteria and indicators (e.g., pages 2-3 of the Liaison Office Report)
4. CURRENT STATUS (5-10 pages)
- update based on pages 4-13 of Liaison Office Report
5. COUNTRY EXPERIENCES (18 pages)
- "vignettes" (e.g. New Zealand's experience with data aggregation)
6. FUTURE ACTION (2 pages)
- outcomes of the Eighth Meeting
Total Report 25-10 pages
| Date | Item |
|---|---|
| 15 DECEMBER 1996 | Report finalized |
| 15 NOVEMBER 1996 | Final comments from countries to Liaison Office |
| 25 OCTOBER 1996 | Liaison Office circulates final draft |
| 25 SEPTEMBER 1996 | Countries submit input to Liaison Office |
| 19-21 AUGUST 1996 | Informal meeting, margins of Helsinki Meeting |
| 18 AUGUST 1996 | Liaison Office circulates first draft |
| 23 JULY 1996 | Countries submit input to Liaison Office |
| 23 JUNE 1996 | Liaison office seeks input from countries, providing guidance on input required |
GUIDANCE ON COUNTRY "VIGNETTES"
Countries are asked to describe in 1.5 pages an experience, approach or problem encountered in data collection and reporting on criteria and indicators for the Montreal Process. It is proposed the description highlight a special situation or condition in the country regarding, for example, forest type or land ownership.
Attachment E
"First Approximation Report by the Montreal Process Countries on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests"
(September 1997)
FRAMEWORK
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
- including the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and adoption of the Santiago Declaration
- short description of the Montreal Process countries, highlighting the wide diversity among them in such things as forest types, socio-economic circumstances and institutional arrangements
3. BACKGROUND
- Description of criteria and indicators, including conceptual basis for criteria and indicators (for eg, pages 2-3 of the Liaison Office Report)
4. OVERVIEW OF MONTREAL PROCESS
- general analysis of country reports
5. COUNTRY REPORTS
- reporting by countries against each indicator
- strategies for the future
| Date | Item |
|---|---|
| 15 SEPTEMBER 1997 | Final Production of First Approximation Report |
| 15 AUGUST 1997 | Comments due from countries on draft report |
| 31 JULY 1997 | Liaison Office circulates draft report |
| 31 MAY 1997 | Countries submit reports to Liaison Office |
| 30 JUNE 1996 | Liaison Office seeks input from countries, (this may include comment on draft outline) |