Table of Contents

A review of some current sustainable forest managementinitiatives and their relationships

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1.1Approaches to sustainable forest management in Canada ................................ 1.2

Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management .......................... 1.2Registration/certification systems ............................................................... 1.4Codes of practice ......................................................................................... 1.6

Relationships and linkages ................................................................................ 1.7Some implications of the initiatives for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest ..... 1.8

Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management .......................... 1.9Registration/certification systems ............................................................... 1.9Codes of practice ......................................................................................... 1.11

A brief analysis of the CCFM criteria and indicators frameworkand its applicability in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest area

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1.12The criteria ........................................................................................................ 1.13The indicators .................................................................................................... 1.14Indicator data availability ................................................................................. 1.15Indicator monitoring and data quality ............................................................... 1.16Applicability in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest area ................................... 1.17

References and source documents ................................................................1.18Appendix A CCFM criteria and indicators - priorities, data

availability/reliability and implementability

Appendix B Criteria and indicators of sustainable forestmanagement for the Eastern Ontario Model

Forest planning area

1-2

SUSTAINABLE FORESTS:A CANADIAN

COMMITMENT

"Our goal is to maintain

and enhance the long-termhealth of our forest

ecosystems, for the benefitof all living things bothnationally and globally,

while providingenvironmental, economic,

social and culturalopportunities for the

benefit of present andfuture generations."

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers

(1992)

A Review of Some Current Sustainable ForestManagement Initiatives and their Relationships

Introduction

The term "sustainable development" entered the public lexiconwith the publication of the Bruntland Commission Report, OurCommon Future, in 1987. It differs from earlier concepts (suchas sustained yield in forestry), in that it assumes an inextricablelink between economic benefit, resource conservation andenvironmental protection, rather than the indefinite exploitationof a resource for, almost solely, economic benefit with little morethan passing concern for the environment itself.

An explicit part of the Bruntland Report, the vision of managingthe global forest estate for economic and social benefit whilemaintaining or enhancing it for future generations, quickly tookon a life of its own. The strongest impetus for this was theforest-related deliberations of the Rio Earth Summit, the U.N.Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in1992. Following UNCED, many national and internationalsustainable forest management undertakings were initiated outof concern for the health and viability of the world's forests aswell as for the catastrophic impacts foreseen, particularly withrespect to climate change, deforestation, desertification and lossof biodiversity, if such efforts were not made on a global basis.(Very few countries, Canada among them, were even quicker offthe mark. The 1992 National Forest Strategy (Sustainable

Forests: A Canadian Commitment) and the accompanying Canada Forest Accord pre-dated UNCED and,arguably, made Canada the first country to formalize a national commitment to sustainable forest managementthrough public consultation.)

Over the past half decade "sustainable forest management" (SFM)has become an international watch term, andis today one of the most pervasive concepts of the sustainable development movement. Consumers areincreasingly demanding that wood-based products be produced from sustainably managed forests usingenvironmentally-friendly manufacturing processes. Environmentalists are vocal in their demands for theprotection of forest lands and the application of sustainable forest management practices. Nations and groupsof nations are working diligently to establish and implement sustainable forest management practice guidelinesand legislation. Forest industries are nervously seeking mechanisms by which their products will be deemedacceptable in the eyes of increasingly aware and discerning consumers.

Although there are many overlapping interests and interests in common, the focus with respect to sustainableforest management tends to vary with the goals of the parties concerned. As regulatory bodies governmentstend to be developmental, they want to have the concept defined and elaborated for control purposes and forthe monitoring and assessment of progress. At the same time, they are concerned with perceptions of forest

1-3

Principal Types ofSustainable Forest

Management Undertakings inCanada

Criteria and Indicators

Certification/Registration

Codes of Practice

management practice and the economic impacts of lost sales in domestic and overseas markets. The forestindustry focusses on market availability and the continuance of product sales. The viability of individualindustries depends upon it. It needs, therefore, to have assurance that its products will continue to beacceptable to the consumer. Similarly, forest resource owners need to know that they will be able to continueselling raw materials to the processors and manufacturers of marketable products. The buying public, bothdomestic and overseas, has little concern for economic interests or the mechanisms by which sustainability willbe achieved. It wants to know that forests are not being degraded by their utilization and is highly scepticalof the resource owners' and the industry's ability to appropriately sustain the forests while harvesting them.It also wants assurance that social, cultural and other values are being protected for current and futureenjoyment. The great challenge is to substantially satisfy all of these needs, and more, without significantlycompromising any of them.

The goal of managing the world's forests sustainably is being approached through the sometimes combined,sometimes independent, efforts of governments, industries, resource owners, environmentalists, general publicsand other stakeholders. There are many routes that may be followed in pursuing the goal and there are manyobstacles to overcome before it will be realized on any significant scale. The international will, however, isstrong and progress is being made.

Approaches taken are influenced by forest type (e.g., boreal, tropical), the importance of the forest industry(e.g., a wood exporting nation such as Canada, or a wood importing nation such as Japan), the level of countrydevelopment (e.g., a developed, industrialized nation such as the U.S. or a developing, largely agrarian nationsuch as many found in Africa) and the relative ability of a country's forests to regenerate and be rehabilitated(high in Canada, low in Saharan Africa) as well as other factors. At some point each country must adopt its

own approach (or approaches) and be prepared to harmonizeit, insofar as possible, with those of its neighbours andtrading partners. In all cases, some level of regulation andcompliance will be required on the part of a country's forestowners, managers and users.

Approaches to Sustainable Forest Management inCanada

In Canada, three types of sustainable forest managementundertakings are currently prominent - 1) criteria andindicators, 2) certification or registration, and 3) codes ofpractice. With some exceptions they are still in thedevelopmental or early implementation stages. Each typecontributes towards the attainment of the sustainability goaland in each case there are a number of initiatives underway.Some are national in scope, others are regional, many are

more localized. Some have ties to broader undertakings whereas others are wholly independent. Relativelyfew will be of direct interest or concern to the EOMF and its members.

Although the term had been "defined" as much as ten years ago, few could say what constituted sustainableforest management, other than by simple statement of desired effect or outcome. For many, even of thosehaving some familiarity with the concept, and certainly with the general public, that remains the case today.We know what we want in general terms, but what do we need to know specifically, how do we get to wherewe want to go, and how will we know when we have arrived?

1-4

The CCFM initiative on criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management is frequently referred1

to as “The Canadian Approach”.

CRITERIONA distinguishingcharacteristic by whichsomething may be judgedor that provides a policyframework

INDICATORA variable that can bemeasured in relation to aspecific criterion to assesstrends or progresstowards sustainability

The Canadian Approach

1) Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management

Since UNCED, a focus of governments worldwide has been the development of criteria and indicators as the

working definitions of sustainable forest management and as a basis for common understanding. A numberof multi-national initiatives has been directed towards thedevelopment of criteria and indicators for groups of countrieshaving like forest conditions or economic interests. Examplesinclude the Helsinki Process (covering the European Union),the Montreal Process (covering boreal and temperate forestcountries outside Europe), and the Amazonian Process(covering countries of the Amazon Basin in tropical SouthAmerica). Numerous other undertakings have been aimed atdeveloping criteria and indicators for individual countries andeven regions within countries. It can be expected that therewill be as many such "definitions" as there are jurisdictionsattempting to develop them since the desired objective isalways closely tied to economic goals and to social andenvironmental uniqueness.

In Canada, the principal undertaking has been that of theCanadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) in which a1

Criteria and Indicators Working Group (C/I WG), comprisedof some 75 representatives from government, industry,environmental organizations, Aboriginal groups, associations

of small woodlot owners, academics and other stakeholders, prepared a comprehensive framework of criteriaand indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada. The framework was accepted by the CCFM inthe fall of 1995. According to the CCFM publication, Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadianapproach to criteria and indicators (1995), criteria and indicators provide, collectively, "a framework fordescribing the state of forests and forest management, and for periodically demonstrating achievements inimplementing sustainable forest management". In a following undertaking having a similar range ofparticipants, the CCFM is preparing a plan for national implementation and reporting which will cover allprovinces and territories as well as the federal government. It can be anticipated that the essential elements ofthe framework will be incorporated, in one form or another, into the forest management policies and regulationsof each jurisdiction, if not in legislation itself.

Criteria identify the environmental, social and economic elements which are essential to the sustainabledevelopment of any forest estate. They are, for all intents and purposes, common to all forest zones in all partsof the world. There is virtual unanimity internationally on four critical environmental criteria dealing withbiological diversity, forest health and productivity, soil and water conservation, and global climate change.There is also close agreement on criteria (one each) dealing with economic and social benefits (although thereare different views on the elements which make up these two criteria). The Canadian Approach incorporatesall six. Some undertakings include additional criteria although these most frequently represent little more thansub-divisions of the six noted above. Legal and policy frameworks have been included as a seventh criterion

1-5

Certification and registration are not synonymous. By way of example, the Canadian Standards Association considers the2

sustainable forest management system review process to be one of registraion, not certification, and includes definitions in itsguidance and specifcation documents (see sidebar). Althought the difference between the two may seem trivial, it will be ofimportance to those concerned with the management of forest land and the sale of forest products to be aware of the distinction.(The CSA definition of “registration” is somewhat cryptic. The concept is elaborated further in the text.)

in at least one undertaking (Montreal Process) and may, eventually, be incorporated in the Canadian approach.

Indicators are identified for each criterion. They are the elements which must be considered and monitored ifsustainability, with respect to that criterion, is to be achieved. The Canadian framework has 83 indicatorsspread over its six criteria. The indicators approximate closely to those of the multi-national undertakings,particularly with respect to the environmental criteria. They are somewhat less similar in the economic andsocial criteria for a number of reasons, including Canada being one of the world's leading exporters of forestproducts, the country's size and federated makeup, the existence of a significant Aboriginal population, thelarge number of communities largely or wholly dependent on forest industries, and the relative prosperity ofthe country and its people.

This close agreement on criteria and on environmental indicators provides a solid base for internationalharmonization, which would allow each jurisdiction to accept other frameworks, and which would allow eachto have its own accepted, without the frameworks being identical or necessarily very close in content detail.The implications for trading partners, in particular, are clear. 'Your concept of sustainable forest managementis acceptable to us and we are prepared to accept the products which you produce from forests managedaccordingly.'

It is important to realize that "no single criterion or indicator alone is an indication of sustainability; rather, theindividual criteria and indicators must be considered in the context of other criteria and indicators. Further,indicators should be viewed as providing information on trends or changes in the status of forests and relatedvalues over time". It is further important to recognize that the criteria and indicators framework developed inCanada (or anywhere else for that matter) "is based on the best available knowledge" and "As our knowledgeof forest ecosystems and factors promoting enhancement of social and economic dimensions improves, thecriteria and indicators will evolve further." (CCFM 1995).

Full definition of forest resource sustainability will be achieved when benchmark or target levels are attachedto applicable indicators. But the process is viable without such benchmarks. Periodic measurement ofindicator status through appropriate monitoring systems, will provide reliable evidence of trends and progresstowards sustainability even when the target level is not specified. Eventually, however, indicator targets willbe required, if for no other reason than to maintain momentum. The ultimate objective must be the stated goalof sustainability. It would be fatal to assume that progress alone is sufficient. The current implementationplanning process addresses the monitoring requirements. Additional effort will be required to establishindicator target and benchmark levels

2) Registration/certification systems2

Those who practice sustainable forest management and who wish to sell their wood-based products will,eventually, want (or perhaps be forced to have) some means of confirming for prospective buyers that thoseproducts have indeed been derived from sustainably managed forests. This will be as applicable to producersof raw materials as it will for those selling processed products or manufactured wood-based goods. Withoutsuch evidence buyers at both the wholesale and retail levels will increasingly refuse purchase and suppliers will,

1-6

increasingly, experience declining sales, or even loss of market access, in at least some parts of the world. Asthe requirement becomes more pervasive, manufacturers who buy some or all of their wood from independentproducers, will place increasing pressure on those suppliers to provide their own evidence of sustainable forestmanagement practice. Purchasers of roundwood may be forced eventually to discontinue buying from supplierswho fail to comply.

Unlike the development of criteria and indicators which has seen a large degree of international cooperationand agreement, there are a variety of competing initiatives in the area of registration/certification. Manycountries and regions have embarked upon undertakings to establish such procedures. They all have much thesame purpose, (i.e., to confirm for domestic and international market purposes that the target lands, companiesor products conform to some sustainability standard). Unfortunately, there is great variation amongst them,there are different reasons for developing them, and there is a sense of mistrust amongst some developers asto the intentions and sincerity of other developers. Since, at the moment, there is no broadly based standardand no global organization overseeing these processes, (e.g., the International Organization for Standardization(ISO)), there has and will continue to have a disrupting influence on an otherwise encouraging internationalmovement. The need, then, has been to develop a system in Canada to make registration possible and tofacilitate the process by which resource owners and forest products manufacturers can, in fact, becomeregistered.

The Canadian forest industry was not slow to seek ways of responding to the sustainability movement whichwas threatening their overseas markets. In 1994, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, representing alarge segment of the Canadian forest industry, approached the CSA to develop a Canadian sustainable forestmanagement system standard. The CSA is a nationally and internationally respected standards organization,and is independent, key reasons for the approach. It also has strong links to the ISO, an organization whichwas expected to lead to the eventual development of an international SFM standard. In an attempt to minimizefuture conflict with any ISO developed standard, the CSA prepared the Canadian standard in ISO format. (TheISO, with Canadian participation is now working on a standard under its environmental standards framework(ISO 14000 series) but the undertaken is still at a very early stage.)

The CSA standard is a basis for sustainable forest land management system registration, a means by whichsellers of forest products can demonstrate their commitment to sustainable forest management practice and theuse of materials obtained from sustainable managed forests. The registration process is applied to a definedland base and to the forest management system being employed on that land base.

The standard sets out the elements of a forest management system that must be considered when entering intoa registration audit and establishes the specifications for conduct of an audit. When all aspects of the standardare met, as evidenced by a registration audit, the forest management system can be registered as complying withthe standard. A certificate of registration would then be issued for use by the forest manager in respect of theland base covered by the audit. Registration of another land area would require separate application and audit.

By itself, there is no legal or jurisdictional requirement for registration by forest land owners and forestproducts manufacturers, although the possibility of eventual incorporation into jurisdictional requirements (e.g.,provincial forest management legislation and regulations) will exist. Participation in a registration audit willbe voluntary but, once underway, the audit will be conducted in accordance with the standard's specifications.Costs of a registration audit will be borne by the applicant. As noted above, participation may one day nolonger be avoidable, especially for large suppliers to overseas markets. The implication for smaller forest landowners who supply the larger organizations is crystal clear.

The development of the CSA standard was a public process in which a broad range of forest interests were

1-7

REGISTRATION refers to the"procedure bywhich a registration organization indicatesrelevant characteristics and particulars of aregistrant's Sustainable ForestManagement System in an appropriate andpublicly available list following asuccessful registration audit".

CERTIFICATION refers to the "certificate ofregistration" or the "official documentissued by a registration organization to theregistration applicant upon successfulcompletion of a registration audit".

REGISTRATION AUDIT refers to "asystematic and documented verificationprocess to objectively obtain and evaluateevidence to determine whether theperformance of a Sustainable ForestManagement System and the defined forestarea under that system conforms to theregistration audit criteria....".

represented. The process was completed and finalized during 1996 with acceptance of the standard by theStandards Council of Canada. The standard was published in October 1996.

An international initiative having potential to be of significance to larger Canadian forest land owners inparticular, is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The Council, a non-government, independent, volunteerorganization with headquarters in Mexico, is comprised of participants from numerous countries. It has beenin existence since 1993 and has developed its own set of principles and criteria for the evaluation of forest landmanagement practice. The FSC does not, itself, conduct evaluation audits, but has established itself as anaccreditor of certification organizations. It has developed formalized procedures for accreditation andguidelines for certifiers which are designed to bring structure and standardization to the certificationundertakings of accredited organizations. The purpose of the FSC's accreditation procedure is to permit aguarantee of authenticity of the claims of forest products producers and manufacturers that their products arederived from sustainably managed forests.

The FSC has developed a set of 10 principles of forest management and their attendant criteria. They areinternational in scope and do not contain nation-specific elements. As a result, they cannot deal with the specificor unique aspects of national, or even regional, environmental, social and economic conditions. As a furtherresult, the FSC has stated quite definitively thattheir principles and criteria are meant to besupplemented by local sustainable forestrystandards.

Terminologically, the FSC principles andcriteria equate, roughly, to the criteria andindicators of the Canadian Approach. Theyinclude many of the environmental, social andeconomic elements of the Canadian Approachbut go somewhat further in that they incorporatealso some elements of the CSA SFM Standard,namely management planning and monitoringand assessment.

In Canada's case, the FSC is more of a parallelinitiative than a complementary one. Its mainadvantage, at this time, is that it is an operatingprocess which provides an opportunity forproducers and manufacturers to gain someclaim to authenticity while the more specificprograms of countries such as Canada and,ultimately, the ISO, are developed and put inplace. As with the CSA process, an FSCsupported certification is voluntary and resourceowner initiated and funded.

The FSC has looked askance at the CSA process because it was promoted by Canadian industry and is beingdeveloped by an agency (the Canadian Standards Association) that fosters improved access to foreign marketsby Canadian companies. Although these facts are true, such a view tends to overlook the fact that the CSAStandard is founded upon the Canadian criteria and indicators framework, a scientifically sound, publicly

1-8

Some examples of Canadianagencies currently having Codes of

Practice in effect

Ontario Forest IndustriesAssociation

Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill

Owners Association

Alberta Forest Products Association

Province of British Columbia

Eastern Ontario Model Forest

La Fédération des Producteurs de

bois du Québec

developed undertaking which itself is being well received internationally. It may well look askance also at theHelsinki and Montreal Processes because they are government sponsored initiatives with all the potential biasesthat that may entail. This would tend to ignore the fact that great strides have been made in recent yearsthrough UNCED and the criteria and indicatorsinitiatives internationally to move forward with theimplementation of sustainable forest management,undertakings which have been heavily supportedand endorsed by most of those same governments.The FSC believes that its own approach tocertification is unassailable because it is non-aligned (with government or commercial interest)and because, in its role as the "accreditor ofcertifiers", it alone is able to determine thosecompanies which are suitable to conductcertification audits. As suggested earlier, the FSCapproach to certification is only one of severaloptions that may be considered by those wishing tomarket their forest products

3) Codes of practice

Codes of practice are quite different from the

foregoing types of initiative. They are generally

(but not always) much less formalized and rangefrom single sheet foldouts to modest publications to,infrequently, complex documents embodied inlegislation (the case in British Columbia). There islittle mystery about them. They are most commonly developed by organizations as guides for the conduct ofmembers. They may be couched in very general terms or they may set out in very specific terms theresponsibilities of member organizations or individuals. Contrary to the application of criteria and indicatorsof sustainable forest management, or the undertaking of a registration/certification process, they are frequentlynot voluntary. Often they become a condition of membership which may, in the extreme, be revoked by theparent or umbrella organization if a member does not comply with the requirements of the particular code.Some codes require periodic review of both the code and member performance under the code.

Although they can be painful to develop and carry no guarantees, codes of practice are a simple but effectiveresponse to growing social or customer demand for responsible action as a means of making an undertakingor product more acceptable. Difficulties generally only arise when a member fails to adhere to the code andthe parent organization is faced with taking appropriate action or enduring some level of public censorship.A code of practice is most often developed as a genuine attempt to improve an undertaking or process. In thecase of forestry, many organizations are attempting to incorporate basic sustainability elements in their codesof practice in recognition of failings of the past and the expectation that improvement will benefit society aswell as the organization' members. Sustainability elements are frequently only part of code content which aimsat guiding members in other areas covered by the parent organization as well. They often contain referenceto other guides (e.g., the criteria and indicators of the Canadian Approach) which may or may not be coderequirement.

1-9

Relationships and Linkages

The foregoing types of initiatives, (i.e., criteria and indicators, registration/certification, and codes of practice),each have their own purpose and are each designed to function independently. However, the links between themare integral and inextricable. They are not covered by any mutual agreement, formal or informal, but aresimply built in as a result of their compelling nature.

The basic building block for any consideration of sustainability, is an understanding of what it is thatconstitutes sustainability; what it is that must be known to achieve sustainability. Criteria and indicators arebeing used to describe the critical elements of sustainable forest management and to provide a workingdefinition. It is this definition that forms the basis for forest management registration/certification systems andcodes of practice. Without it, or something equally defining, it is not possible to undertake these two types ofinitiative in any meaningful way. Therein lies the essential link amongst the three types of initiative and it isthis fundamental comprehension that must be grasped.

Each registration/certification scheme for sustainable forest management incorporates the fundamentals ofsustainability to some degree or other. The CSA standard incorporates the Canadian Approach criteria aswritten. They form the basis for the standard and for, ultimately, the accommodation of market concerns oversustainability domestically and internationally. Although the CSA standard is much more loose in itsincorporation of indicators, all critical areas covered by the Canadian Approach indicators must be consideredin an audit review. Determination of whether each is adequately considered is made by the auditor andcontributes towards the overall determination for registration of the forest area being audited. As noted, theFSC has developed its own set of criteria and indicators (principles and criteria) but their use by certifiedauditors is essentially the same as for the CSA process

Being less formalized, codes of practice generally do not incorporate criteria and indicators directly. Morecommonly, they utilize the basic concepts of sustainability as described by criteria and indicators but couchthem in their own terms to satisfy the principles of sustainability in a manner which member organizations haveagreed and can accommodate. It is not usual that codes of practice refer to registration/certification processes,principally because the latter are very new on the scene, Virtually all codes now in existence pre-dateapplicable registration/certification processes. It is quite conceivable, however, that umbrella organizationssuch as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA), the Ontario Forest Industries Association (OFIA)and like organizations will, at some point, include registration/certification as a desired undertaking if not arequired undertaking. In such case, a CSA standard or an ISO standard may well become an integral part ofsuch codes.

In practice, an organization, or group of organizations, is free to choose the extent to which it wishes toincorporate any of the three types of initiatives. A code of practice is something that can be developed andincorporated immediately. It is generally a straightforward undertaking and does not require functional tie toany of the other initiatives. Application for registration/certification is undertaken by individuals, organizationsor groups of organizations on a periodic basis without reference to the CSA or other developing organization.It is merely necessary to contact an approved auditor to request a review. A resultant certificate of registrationis applicant and area specific. The successful registrant alone is free to use the registration to promote itsproducts.

Criteria and indicators have been developed by the CCFM as a guide for those in Canada who wish to practicesustainable forest management. The indicators described by the CCFM are considered to be national incontext, however, and may not have full applicability at the local or regional level. Although many nationalindicators will be relevant to local applications, it will be necessary for individual organizations to incorporate

1-10

local indicators as well in their systems. Local indicators will be developed on the basis of local environmental,social and economic conditions.

It is not yet clear how sustainable forest management systems will be implemented on a large scale. Monitoringand assessment capabilities are not yet complete or adequate. Benchmark levels for indicators are not in placeand may not be for some time to come. The costs of implementing sustainable forest management practice maynot be as onerous as once feared but the obtaining of registration may be difficult for smaller suppliers to bear.One alternative may be to band together in collectives or associations through which the collective orassociation would be registered and costs would be shared. Collective members would be required to adhereto a "code of practice" to remain a member since to transgress would affect all other members.

Another option, although an increasingly unsatisfactory one, is not to undertake sustainable forest managementpractice at all. Obviously, the markets are not going to be shut down immediately. Many markets may remainforever unrestrictive. Whether the most lucrative for Canadian producers will become closed is a matter offuture resolution. The no-action approach is decidedly shortsighted and fails to recognize the validity ofCanada's National Forest Strategy or growing global concern as debated at UNCED. Can resource ownersand managers and wood-based producers afford to wait and see. Many believe that inaction is not in their bestinterests and have taken early action, e.g., the Canadian forest industry through the CSA and the Model ForestProgram. Ultimately, it can be anticipated that public pressures will force the issue and that the majority offorest land owners will be expected to implement socially responsible forest management practices whether theysell their products or not.

Some Implications of the Initiatives for Eastern Ontario Forests

To see sustainable forestry in its proper light, one must understand the overriding reason that the initiativesdiscussed above are being undertaken. The need for sustainable forestry is humanity driven. Sustainable forestmanagement is not an act of benevolence but an essential undertaking to ameliorate human impacts which, todate, have served mainly to degrade the forests of the world. Without the pressures of human activity, whetherdirect or indirect, the forests of North America, Canada, eastern Ontario would endure. They would changeover time, but they would endure.

It is my sense that the members of the EOMF, regardless of any desires they may have to use the forest forenjoyment or economic benefit, are well aware of this precept. They are also aware that forest husbandry/stewardship does not preclude judicious utilization of forest values. It is not use or change that we seek toavoid but irreparable degradation of the forest ecosystem or of its component values.

The EOMF has been founded on the notion that forest values shall be enhanced over time and shall be availablenot only for present use but also for future use. Given the foregoing, the primary implication with respect tothe initiatives discussed above is commitment; the commitment to utilize whatever means are available toachieve sustainability of the forests of eastern Ontario. A number of specific implications for each of the threetypes of initiative are given below. Additional implications are discussed throughout the text of this report.

1) Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management

It is almost inconceivable that sustainable forest management can be achieved without identifying those thingsthat constitute it and without some basis for establishing the goals to be achieved. And yet that is the way itis viewed in many quarters and is the reason why frequently only lip service is paid to implementing sustainableforest management practice. Further, it is axiomatic that there must be grounds for agreement amongst thoseimplementing sustainable forest management practices if the end product is to be widely accepted.

1-11

SOME IMPLICATIONS

Commitment

Criteria and IndicatorsCC Adopt and implement criteria

and indicatorsCC Undertake sustainable forest

management activitiesCC Communications and

education are keyCC Develop funding and become

self-sustaining

Registration/CertificationCC Not a requirement for EOMFCC Needed by suppliers of raw

products for overseas marketsCC Costly and ongoingCC Subject to periodic renewal

and revocation

Codes of PracticeGuidelinesDesirable for EOMFUnlikely to be binding onmembersEvidence of commitment

Scientifically-based criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management are the principal means by whichthe forest nations of the world believe this can happen. It is only a short leap of logic to conclude that, if muchof the world views the six criteria and their componentindicators as the working definitions of sustainability,those concerned with smaller parcels of land will needto have a similar view. Criteria and indicators, or some

equally defining approach, are fundamental to the

achievement of forest sustainability. It will benecessary for the EOMF to adopt and implement(assessment/monitoring/ reporting) a framework ofcriteria and indicators of sustainable forestmanagement. It should be based on the CCFMframework and should incorporate all six criteria as wellas many of the indicators of that framework. Thechallenge will be to select indicators for each criterion,whether in the CCFM framework or not, thatappropriately accommodate local environmental, socialand economic conditions while satisfying the broadertenets of sustainable forest management in general. AnEOMF-specific framework has been proposed by theauthor in the more detailed report upon which thispublication is based as a starting point. A finalframework would most appropriately be developedthrough EOMF partner discussion and consensus.

Sustainability is not a one shot undertaking. It is a

long-term objective which will only be accomplished

over many years. Progress towards sustainability willbe predicated upon the development of appropriatestrategies and a strong program of sustainable forestmanagement activities aimed at improving the valuescovered by the indicators adopted. Funds will be at apremium and much of the energy of the EOMF willhave to be directed towards financing its sustainableforest management activities. There will be a need to"spread the word" as diligently as possible to motivateothers to become involved. Communications and education will be the keys. As government funding will belimited, the EOMF will have to seek independent funding sources and strive to become self-sustaining overtime.

2) Registration/certification systems

Registration/certification is the means by which the forest owners and managers, whether companies,individuals or collectives, provide evidence to potential buyers that there products have been derived fromsustainably managed forests. It is not evidence of sustainability but, insofar as it is a carrot for the practicingof sustainable forest management, it may provide additional impetus for achieving sustainability. Is there any

1-12

essential requirement for harvesters of forest products, mainly timber, to become registered or certified? Thesimple answer is "no". But if you are a producer of products being sold in overseas markets, or if you are asupplier to an industry that does supply overseas markets, the answer is not so clear cut. Perhaps "not just yet"would be the answer.Will the EOMF need to become certified? Again, the answer is "no", not unless it wishes to act as an agentfor a group of its members in which case a decision to become certified might well have to be taken.

The full impact of customer-driven demands for products from sustainably managed forests has not yet beenfelt. It is not certain whether the demands will remain localized and limited or will develop into a ground swellthat will eventually affect a large percentage of the world's suppliers of forest products. At present, the mainimpact is being felt in Europe where various governments and consumer groups have boycotted forest productsfrom certain countries and certain forest products from certain companies. With growing environmentalawareness and diminishing sources of supply, the likelihood is that there will be a gradual increase in the globaldemand for "green" products and that this will filter through to at least the larger international suppliers offorest products. If sufficient pressure is placed on the larger exporters, it is reasonable to expect that, sooneror later, they will begin to demand at least some measure of sustainable forest management practice on the partsof their domestic suppliers, including small woodlot owners who use their forest properties as a means ofrevenue.

This may present a serious financial dilemma for small woodlot owners who generally do not have largeamounts of money to invest in their properties. The requirement will be not just one of becoming registered/certified, for which their may be substantial cost, but it will also be for significant investment in sustainablemanagement practice. Small land owners may be able to avoid the requirement for registration/certificationfor some time, perhaps their lifetime. It will depend on how rapidly the movement develops and how importantit is to sell products in markets that are subject to green consumerism. To date the movement has not beenparticularly strong in either Canada or the U.S., but there are signs that it is just a matter of time. The NorthAmerican public is beginning to feel the desire for "sustainable forest management" even if this has not yet beentranslated into much action at the sales counters.

For small woodlot owners who wish to pursue registration/certification, the most feasible approach at presentwould seem to be the formation of collectives which would act on behalf of individual land owners. Acollective could be registered/certified, with members sharing the cost, on the premise that the members of thecollective do, in fact, practice sustainable forest management.

Registration/certification should not be considered lightly or entered into on whim. It will be costly. And therewill be ongoing cost. Ground inspections, as well as forest management plan and operating practice inspectionscan be expected as part of the audit process. Registration/certification will have to be renewed on a regularbasis, approximately every five years, with the application of a new audit undertaking. Evidence of continuingsustainable management practice will be required.

The forest products of a collective would be designated as coming from sustainably managed forest land byvirtue of the collective's registration/certification and the members agreement to so manage their lands. Astrong onus would be placed on each member to hold up his end of the bargain since failure by individuals todo so might well result in the collective's registration/certification being revoked.

At present it matters little which of the two main schemes one chooses to follow. The FSC's scheme isoperational and it has accredited a number of international agencies to undertake certification audits. Thereis no evidence at this time that this enhances the saleability of products on the international market but it is notlikely that it downgrades that saleability in any way. The CSA scheme is awaiting final approval from the

Standards Council of Canada, expected in the fall of 1996. Once approval is obtained, the scheme should moveahead in much the same way as that of the FSC. Products coming from registered/certified,sustainablymanaged forests can only have an edge in global and domestic markets unless they are not competitively priced.

In the future, the schemes that will be most widely accepted will be those that conform to the ISO 14000environmental management standard. This is not yet in place for forestry and may not be for a number of yearsyet but ISO is moving in that direction and it would seem to be only a matter of time. The CSA scheme hasbeen designed to be compatible with the ISO standard and is, as has been noted earlier, a potential model foran ISO-developed standard. It is premature to attempt to judge whether or not the FSC certification approachwill be acceptable to ISO.

3) Codes of practice

As has been noted, codes of practice are, for the most part, guidelines developed by organizations for the useof their members. They usually describe codes of conduct for the practice of a member's business. They mayor may not be requirements for membership but flagrant abuse of a code would not doubt be cause for reviewof a member's actions whether or not adherence is required.

The EOMF presented its own code of practice in late 1996, a code that is based upon and fosters sustainaleforest management. It provides necessary guidance to EOMF members, and others in eastern Ontario, who wishto practice SFM. While it may be impractical for an organization like the EOMF to include implementationof criteria and indicators, or registration/certification, as a requirement of membership, a collective that wishedto become registered/certified would certainly have to require adherence to sustainable forest managementprinciples. As noted above, it would then be almost mandatory for the members of such an organization toincorporate criteria and indicators into their code of practice.

Are codes of practice essential? No, but they make a positive statement to the general public that the membersof an organization have common beliefs and are expected to conduct their businesses in a certain way whichis public knowledge. It is also a statement of commitment, without which there can be no assurance that aprescribed course will be followed.

A Brief Analysis of the CCFM Criteria and Indicators Frameworkand its Applicability in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Area

Introduction

The CCFM criteria and indicators framework serves as a broad guide to the implementation, monitoring andassessment of sustainable forest management in Canada. The criteria and their indicators identify thoseelements which are, at present, considered to be essential or important to the sustainability of forest-relatedvalues.

The framework is national in scope. It was designed to provide common ground for the development ofsustainable forest management policy on a broad regional basis, i.e., provincially and territorially as well asfor areas of federal responsibility, and to facilitate reporting of progress on sustainable forest managementnationally and internationally.

The framework is based on the best available knowledge and understanding of forest ecosystem processes. Itis based also in the belief that the needs of society are an integral part of sustainable forest development. The

1-14

The CCFM Criteria1. Conservation of biological

diversity2. Maintenance and enhancement

of forest ecosystem conditionand productivity

3. Conservation of soil and waterresources

4. Forest ecosystem contributionsto global ecological cycles

5. Multiple benefits to society6. Accepting society's

responsibility forsustainable development

framework is not immutable. New knowledge in either area would lead to improvement of our currentunderstanding of forest sustainability which could lead, in turn, to revision of the framework. It should not beanticipated, however, that there would be dramatic change. Rather, it is likely that there will be an evolutionand gradual refinement of the framework which should lead to continuing improvement of sustainable forestmanagement practice and the benefits derived by Canadians in all walks of life.

National reporting on criteria and indicators is set to be initiated by the CCFM in the fall of 1996. The firstreporting will test the system and determine with greater clarity data availability and the difficulty in collectingand synthesizing data. It is anticipated that reporting will become increasingly comprehensive, with improvingquality, as experienced is gained and as new and more efficient monitoring systems are employed in thegathering of data.

The Criteria

The six criteria of the CCFM framework are mirrored in the other major criteria and indicators initiativescurrently underway around the world. They are intuitive to a large extent and are recognized as the essentialelements of forest sustainability no matter what the context. As such, they are the basis for commonunderstanding amongst nations participating in the international sustainable forestry dialogue.

The four environmental criteria (Criteria 1-4) address the forest ecosystem and its contributions to globalecological cycles. They are not dependent on human intervention, although they take into consideration forestresponses to human intervention. At the same time, sustainable forest development is about benefits to society(Criterion 5). Sustainable development requires that the forest continue to provide both commercial and non-monetary benefits over the long term. In the case of the former, this "economic" criterion considers benefitssuch as commercial wood products, non-woodproducts, tourism and employment while in thelatter wildlife, recreation, aesthetics and wildernessvalue benefits are considered.

The social criterion (Criterion 6) addresses thenotion that sustainable development is, ultimately,about people. As stated in the CCFM booklet, ACanadian approach to criteria and indicators, "itis about society's values, the quality of life ofmembers of society both individually andcollectively" and the effectiveness with which wemanage our resources "in the best interests ofpresent and future generations". The criterion isconcerned also with "how we deal with the specialand unique needs of particular cultural and/orsocio-economic communities, and the extent towhich the allocation of our scarce resources can beconsidered to be fair, equitable, balanced, andjust".

1-15

The IndicatorsThe indicators of the CCFM framework elaborate and provide working definition for the individual criteria.They were compiled following much consideration and deliberation by a broad range of stakeholders from theCanadian forest community and by Canadian technical experts. A basic principle of the process was that anindicator would be included if deemed important and would not be weeded out just because it appeared difficultto implement or monitor, or because there were little or no data available. A valid "definition" of sustainableforest management was the key consideration. Data sourcing would be worked out over time for all of theindicators.

There was no difficulty in coming up with suggestions for indicators. The challenge was to keep the numberof indicators to a manageable level while covering the essential elements of sustainability. Although the groupof 83 indicators eventually selected may be viewed as onerous from an implementation point of view, it is notas all-encompassing as some would have preferred. Nor does it deal with particular interests to the extent thatsome would have liked. Notwithstanding, the indicators selected do represent a consensus view ofsustainability.

The C/I committee was not asked to deal with standards or threshold levels, i.e., quantitative targets which,when reached, would be considered the sustainability level for the respective indicators. These are consideredto be matters of policy. The matter was flagged, however, as an essential eventual need if sustainability is tobe achieved.

For some indicators, in some jurisdictions, target levels are in place. In other cases, international convention,or pressure, may dictate what the target level must be. In still others a "best management practice" approachwill be employed. In the absence of standards or threshold levels, monitoring will be aimed at identifying trendsand assessing direction of movement and rate of progress towards forest sustainability.

In some cases it may not be possible to monitor an indicator directly. Since a means must be found to evaluateeach indicator, the use of proxy indicators will be one solution. Also, while many of the indicators can beassessed quantitatively, there are others for which only a descriptive assessment is possible. In these cases thecurrent status and trend of an indicator will be described qualitatively.

Indicator data availability

It must be emphasized again that sustainability is not measured indicator by indicator, or even criterion bycriterion. As the CCFM booklet notes "the individual criteria and indicators must be considered in the contextof other criteria and indicators". Only in this way will we be able to determine whether or not progress is beingmade towards forest sustainability. It is therefore important that as complete data as possible are gathered forthe range of criteria and indicators.

There are no data requirements for the criteria themselves. Data for the criteria are bound up in the individualindicators. Criterion by criterion reporting will be accomplished through the roll-up of information obtainedfrom the group of indicators which makes up each criterion.

During the latter part of 1995 and well into 1996, a Technical Committee (TC), established by the CCFManalyzed and rated each indicator for data availability in the lead-up to the proposed national reporting. Aspart of the process, the TC identified information gaps and proposed approaches for filling those gaps. Timeframes, costs and responsibilities for obtaining missing information have been suggested. Difficulty ofobtaining missing data has also been estimated. It is believed that most of the gaps can be addressed over aone-to-five-year period. Many can be addressed within a year of startup. Still others are considereddevelopmental and can only be addressed over lengthier time frames of up to 10 years.

1-16

Difference due to rounding.3

Given that indicators were developed without dependence upon data availability, it is not surprising thatmanydata gaps currently exist. What may be surprising is that the indicators are covered as well as they are. Thethree-class data availability rating system developed by the TC, 40% of the indicators were identified as havinga high level of data availability and 46% as having moderate data availability with some Only 13% wereidentified as largely deficient.3

On a weighted basis, Criterion 2 (Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition andproductivity) and Criterion 4 (Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles) are deemed to havethe high overall indicator information availability whereas Criterion 3 (Conservation of soil and waterresources) has low availability. The other three criteria are nearly equal and could be considered as "middle-of-the-road" in indicator data availability

Indicator monitoring and data quality

Data for national reporting on criteria and indicators will be derived from a wide range of sources. Somecanbe provided through current information systems. Given the recent advent of interest in sustainability, manyexisting monitoring or data collection systems were not developed for the purposes of reporting on sustainableforest management. Some of these can be modified or upgraded to serve a more integrated purpose. Otherswill be used only until better systems are in place.

Data will be obtained from well-organized collectors with sound monitoring and analysis procedures but datareliability will have to be carefully scrutinized. The CCFM TC has focussed on the reliability concern and hasbuilt into its proposed approaches mechanisms to address the numerous needs. Collaborative strategies arebeing developed for the employment of existing monitoring systems, where sufficient and reliable, and for thedevelopment of new monitoring systems where current capabilities are inadequate or non-existent. Reliabilitywill be improved wherever possible as part of the ongoing process of data collection.

Much of the information for the environmental criteria will come from the National Forestry Database, itselfan agglomeration of data from provincial and territorial data gathering systems. Statscan will provide data formany areas of the socio-economic indicators. Some indicators, for example those addressing the concerns ofAboriginals, will be covered by information obtained from special interest groups such as First Nationssources. Numerous other specific sources will be used also for data and information. (See sidebar forexamples.)

One significant area where a regression in data collection seems to be occurring is that related to the formerForest Insect and Disease Survey (FIDS) of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS). Until recent and terminalcutbacks, FIDS was seen as the principal source for a number of the forest health and condition indicators ofCriterion 2. Although parts of the FIDS responsibilities will be incorporated into the CFS's proposed ForestHealth Network, and other parts may be privatized, it is difficult to see as thorough and comprehensive databeing available as was previously the case.

1-17

Data and InformationSources The Assembly of

First NationsCanada Centre for

Remote SensingCanadian Forest ServiceForest Health Network

National Forestry Data BaseBiodiversity NetworkCanadian Pulp andPaper Association

Environment CanadaCanadian Wildlife Service

National ConservationAreas Data Base

Committee on the Statusof Endangered Wildlife

in CanadaNational Water Data Base

National AboriginalForestry Association

Ontario ForestIndustries Association

Ontario Ministry ofAgriculture and Food

Statistics CanadaOntario Ministry of

Although indicator monitoring and data collection are essential first elements, data reliability and usability areequally dependent on the analysis systems which transform the information into the required form. Therefore,in addition to ensuring that monitoring systems are adequate,much attention will also be paid to associated analysissystems (now virtually all computerized), a task that may beas onerous as the setting up of the monitoring systemsthemselves. Such systems will also have to be modified orupgraded, or developed where lacking.

Periodicity of data collection will vary widely. Someindicator parameters will be monitored annually but themore common frequency will be once every 2-5 years.Some indicators, for example those relying on provincialforest inventories, may be measured no more often than onceevery ten years. Further, data collection points for allindicators will rarely, if ever, coincide. As a result, thestatus of forest sustainability and progress towards fullsustainability will be difficult to assess accurately at anygiven time.

Frequently, data will be old before they are available foruse. The provincial forest inventories are, again, a goodcase in point. A large province is never surveyed completelyfor forest inventory purposes in a single year. It could takeup to ten years to complete data collection. The job issimply too large. Data are then compiled and analyzed overa period of one to several years. By the time they areavailable for inclusion in a criteria and indicators reportingthey do not represent the current condition. Data reliabilitythen, while accurate at the time of collection, will bearguable by the time it is available. The combining of tenforest inventories plus federal inventories only amplifies theproblem. Similar circumstances will exist also with StatsCan data, particularly the information which comes fromcensus data gathered only once a decade.The situation is not unique to Canada. It emphasizes theimportance of trend reporting and the reliance that will haveto be placed on it for the monitoring of sustainable forestmanagement initiatives world wide. The Canadian reportingteam is cognizant of the difficulty and will be taking available steps to minimize the impact on overall reportingon forest sustainability.

Criteria and indicator selection for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest Model Forest Area

As noted at the outset of this section, the CCFM framework is designed to monitor and report progress insustainable forestry at the national level. It is not intended as a tool for assessing sustainability directly at thelocal level.

The six criteria of the CCFM framework, apply almost regardless of the size of the target area. The difficulty

1-18

Explanation is given in the report as to why the other 17 indicators of the CCFM framework have not been included.4

The reader is cautioned that the implementability ratings, although based on fairly extensive author knowledge and on5

enquireds made as part of this undertaking, are subjective and should be subjected to local review.

for local area reporting lies with the indicators. Although many of the indicators may be used locally, otherscannot simply because they are too broad in scope. Some, although having local applicablility, may not belocally implementable because data is sparse or unavailable. Monitoring systems frequently do not aggregatedata at the local level and it is often not possible to extract local area data from large area data sets.

The set of indicators applied to any local area should satisfy all of the elements perceived as essential for forestsustainability. As a result, indicator selection is not entirely a matter of free will. They must conform as closelyas possible to an accepted norm. Deviations from the norm should be appropriately justified, to the extent thatobservers inside and outside the target area are satisfied of the validity of any exclusion.

Despite limitations for local area application, the CCFM framework, the Canadian norm, should be employedto the greatest extent possible in the development of implementable indicators for the EOMF planning area.This would go a long way towards ensuring that local sustainability strategies are in tune with national andinternational sustainable forest management initiatives.

Because of its multitude of land uses, its diversity of forest land ownerships, its high degree of forest landfragmentation, and its ease of access by leterally millions of potenial users, the EOMF planning area presentsa number of chanllenges which are unique in the Canadian Model Forest Progra. Thus the indicators drawnfrom the CCFM framwork, which would form the majority of the local area framwork, whould be augmentedby others which reflect the values that set the EOMF apart.

The report to the EOMF, upon which this publication is based (Riley 1996), has identified 77 indicatorsconsidered important for assessing progress towards forest sustainability in the EOMF planning area. Of these,66 have been taken directly from the CCFM framework. Another 11 indicators have been drawn from the4

deliberations of the CCFM WG. Although, not part of the national framework, the latter were included in agroup on indicators considered by the WG to be of importance in the assessment of sustainability at the locallevel. The full set proposed for the EOMF is listed in Appendix A, along with estimations of local priority, anddata availability and reliability. Sixty-four percent are rated as having “high” local priority indicators included.

The appendix includes also and eastern Ontario “implementabilty” rating for each indicator based upon notonly data availability and reliability, but also the ease of obtaining data and the work likely to be needed to putthe data into useable shape. Twenty-eigh percent are considered to be of “high” implementability. Another 34%are considered to be of “medium” implementability with 37% rated “low” and 1% rated “very low”. As with5

the national framework, difficulty in implementation was not viewed as a reason for omitting indicators. Theseserve as reference for future inclusions as difficulties with their implementation are removed.

As an early step, the EOMF must decide upon the suite on indicators which it believes will apporpriatelyevaluate the state of the forest sustainability within the EOMF’s mandate. The determination shouldrepresent a consensus view. The task should be undertaken by the EOMF partners in open forum and inconsultation with local stakeholders. Informed input from sustainability experts should be a part of thisprocess which should be considered the initial activity to be taken in the development of a sustainabilityimplementation plan. Local area values must be addressed. Appropriate indicators must be developed forvalues so identified and not otherwise addressed by the broader framework.

1-19

Implementation

The selection of criteria and indicators is merely a first step in a more complex and ongoing process.Selection itself means nothing if the indicators are not periodically assessed, monitored and reported upon.And assessment, monitoring and reporting mean little if progress towards sustainability is not being madeor cannot be demonstrated. A commitment must be made to follow through with each indicator chosensince, as noted previously, sustainability is not measured by individual indicators nor even by individualcriteria.

The assessment of sustainability, particularly in the absence of standards, is a question of trends rather thanabsolutes. Sustainability is not immediate nor is it likely to occur in the short term. Indeed, it may bedifficult to know when, if ever, it is achieved. Rather than attempting to untie such a Gordian knot, the goalshould be to enhance the likelihood that the forest will survive as a viable and productive entity and that itsvalues will be available to future generations in a condition at least as good as at present. This must be seenas a long-term objective.

A strategy for making progress towards sustainability will be necessary. Once the local area framework hasbeen put in place, the current status of the values being considered much be determined, where not alreadyknown. Baseline data must be established from which individual indicator and overall sustainability trendswill eventually be determined. Knowledge of the availability of data and the ability to assess and monitoreach indicator over time mush be refined in order that long-term implementation strategies may bedeveloped. Gaps in indicator knowledge and needs for new sources of data must be identified. Realisticestimates of the costs of full implementation will be required and adjustments in expectation will have to bemade. A well conceived public information and education program, will need to be put in place. Remedialforest management practice activities will have to be devised and implemented.

Concluding comment

Implementation of a sustainability strategy within the EOMF planning area will be no small undertaking.No longer will it be only a matter of bringing together people with interests in sustainable forestmanagement. It will require the involvement of those who have expressed no interest to date and may wellrequire the input of some who do not care about, or even agree with, the concept of sustainability or theprinciples espoused by the EOMF. A long-term commitment t action will be required and there will behurdles to overcome.

The vision of the EOMF is “ to champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its valuesin eastern Ontario through the cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters.” The development of aframework of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management is an essential first step in realizingthat vision. The implementation of the framework through assessment, monitoring and reporting may wellbe the only way to determine if substantive progress is being made towards achieving it.

1-20

3.0 REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS

Anon. 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development (BrundtlandCommission). Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.

Anon. 1992. Sustainable forests: A Canadian commitment. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 50p.Ottawa, Canada.

Anon. 1992. Canada forest accord. 3 p. Ottawa, Canada.

Anon. 1992. Guiding principles and code of forest practices. Ontario Forest Industries Association.12 p. Toronto, Canada.

Anon. 1992. Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on themanagement, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests (Forest principles).United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. United Nations, New York.

Anon. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21, Chapter 11.United Nations, New York.

Anon. 1993. Proc. Ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe, 16-17 June 1993 inHelsinki. 186 p. plus documents. Helsinki, Finland.

Anon. 1994. Proc. Seminar of experts on sustainable development of boreal and temperate forests.Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Canadian Forest Service. 145 p. Ottawa,Canada.

Anon. 1994. European criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Ministerial Conferenceon the Protection of Forests in Europe. 14 p. Helsinki, Finland. Unpublished.

Anon. 1994. Statutes. Forest Stewardship Council. Oaxaca, Mexico.

Anon. 1995. Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators.Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 22 p. Ottawa, Canada

Anon. 1995. Issues for the year 1995. Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. 139 p Montreal, Canada..

Anon. 1995. OWSOA private land forestry code of practice. Ontario Woodlot Owners and SawmillOperators Association. 4 p. Manotick, Canada

Anon. 1995. Forest practices code of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. Numerousdocuments. Victoria, Canada.

Anon. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate andboreal forests: The Montreal process. 27 p. Ottawa, Canada.

Anon. 1995. Principles and criteria for natural forest management. Forest Stewardship Council.Oaxaca, Mexico.

Anon. 1995. Process guidelines for developing regional certification standards. Forest StewardshipCouncil. Oaxaca, Mexico

Anon. 1996. Codes of practice. Alberta Forest Products Association. 20 p. Edmonton, Canada.

Anon. 1996. A sustainable forest management system: Guidance document (Z808-96). Canadian

Standards Association. Toronto, Ontario. 34 p. Pre-publication draft.

Anon. 1996. A sustainable forest management system: Specifications document (Z809-96). CanadianStandards Association. 12 p. Pre-publication draft.