Table of Contents A review of some current sustainable forest management initiatives and their relationships Introduction ....................................................................................................... Approaches to sustainable forest management in Canada ................................ Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management .......................... Registration/certification systems ............................................................... Codes of practice ......................................................................................... Relationships and linkages ................................................................................ Some implications of the initiatives for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest ..... Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management .......................... Registration/certification systems ............................................................... Codes of practice .........................................................................................
1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.11
A brief analysis of the CCFM criteria and indicators framework and its applicability in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest area Introduction ....................................................................................................... The criteria ........................................................................................................ The indicators .................................................................................................... Indicator data availability ................................................................................. Indicator monitoring and data quality ............................................................... Applicability in the Eastern Ontario Model Forest area ...................................
1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17
References and source documents ................................................................1.18 Appendix A CCFM criteria and indicators - priorities, data availability/reliability and implementability Appendix B Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management for the Eastern Ontario Model Forest planning area
A Review of Some Current Sustainable Forest Management Initiatives and their Relationships Introduction
SUSTAINABLE FORESTS: A CANADIAN COMMITMENT "Our goal is to maintain and enhance the long-term health of our forest ecosystems, for the benefit of all living things both nationally and globally, while providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations."
The term "sustainable development" entered the public lexicon with the publication of the Bruntland Commission Report, Our Common Future, in 1987. It differs from earlier concepts (such as sustained yield in forestry), in that it assumes an inextricable link between economic benefit, resource conservation and environmental protection, rather than the indefinite exploitation of a resource for, almost solely, economic benefit with little more than passing concern for the environment itself.
An explicit part of the Bruntland Report, the vision of managing the global forest estate for economic and social benefit while maintaining or enhancing it for future generations, quickly took on a life of its own. The strongest impetus for this was the forest-related deliberations of the Rio Earth Summit, the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in 1992. Following UNCED, many national and international sustainable forest management undertakings were initiated out of concern for the health and viability of the world's forests as well as for the catastrophic impacts foreseen, particularly with Canadian Council of Forest Ministers respect to climate change, deforestation, desertification and loss (1992) of biodiversity, if such efforts were not made on a global basis. (Very few countries, Canada among them, were even quicker off the 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 management through public consultation.) Over the past half decade "sustainable forest management" (SFM)has become an international watch term, and is today one of the most pervasive concepts of the sustainable development movement. Consumers are increasingly demanding that wood-based products be produced from sustainably managed forests using environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes. Environmentalists are vocal in their demands for the protection of forest lands and the application of sustainable forest management practices. Nations and groups of nations are working diligently to establish and implement sustainable forest management practice guidelines and legislation. Forest industries are nervously seeking mechanisms by which their products will be deemed acceptable in the eyes of increasingly aware and discerning consumers. Although there are many overlapping interests and interests in common, the focus with respect to sustainable forest management tends to vary with the goals of the parties concerned. As regulatory bodies governments tend to be developmental, they want to have the concept defined and elaborated for control purposes and for the monitoring and assessment of progress. At the same time, they are concerned with perceptions of forest
1-3 management practice and the economic impacts of lost sales in domestic and overseas markets. The forest industry focusses on market availability and the continuance of product sales. The viability of individual industries depends upon it. It needs, therefore, to have assurance that its products will continue to be acceptable to the consumer. Similarly, forest resource owners need to know that they will be able to continue selling raw materials to the processors and manufacturers of marketable products. The buying public, both domestic and overseas, has little concern for economic interests or the mechanisms by which sustainability will be achieved. It wants to know that forests are not being degraded by their utilization and is highly sceptical of 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 future enjoyment. The great challenge is to substantially satisfy all of these needs, and more, without significantly compromising 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 publics and other stakeholders. There are many routes that may be followed in pursuing the goal and there are many obstacles to overcome before it will be realized on any significant scale. The international will, however, is strong 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 country development (e.g., a developed, industrialized nation such as the U.S. or a developing, largely agrarian nation such 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 harmonize it, insofar as possible, with those of its neighbours and trading partners. In all cases, some level of regulation and Principal Types of compliance will be required on the part of a country's forest Sustainable Forest owners, managers and users.
Management Undertakings in Canada
Approaches to Sustainable Forest Management in Canada
Criteria and Indicators
In Canada, three types of sustainable forest management undertakings are currently prominent - 1) criteria and Certification/Registration indicators, 2) certification or registration, and 3) codes of Codes of Practice practice. With some exceptions they are still in the developmental or early implementation stages. Each type contributes towards the attainment of the sustainability goal and 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. Relatively few 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 sustainable forest management, other than by simple statement of desired effect or outcome. For many, even of those having 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 where we want to go, and how will we know when we have arrived?
1-4 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 number of multi-national initiatives has been directed towards the development of criteria and indicators for groups of countries having like forest conditions or economic interests. Examples CRITERION include the Helsinki Process (covering the European Union), A distinguishing the Montreal Process (covering boreal and temperate forest characteristic by which countries outside Europe), and the Amazonian Process something may be judged (covering countries of the Amazon Basin in tropical South or that provides a policy America). Numerous other undertakings have been aimed at framework developing criteria and indicators for individual countries and even regions within countries. It can be expected that there will be as many such "definitions" as there are jurisdictions INDICATOR attempting to develop them since the desired objective is A variable that can be always closely tied to economic goals and to social and measured in relation to a environmental uniqueness.
specific criterion to assess trends or progress towards sustainability
In Canada, the principal undertaking has been that of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM)1 in which a The Canadian Approach Criteria and Indicators Working Group (C/I WG), comprised of some 75 representatives from government, industry, environmental organizations, Aboriginal groups, associations of small woodlot owners, academics and other stakeholders, prepared a comprehensive framework of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada. The framework was accepted by the CCFM in the fall of 1995. According to the CCFM publication, Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators (1995), criteria and indicators provide, collectively, "a framework for describing the state of forests and forest management, and for periodically demonstrating achievements in implementing sustainable forest management". In a following undertaking having a similar range of participants, the CCFM is preparing a plan for national implementation and reporting which will cover all provinces and territories as well as the federal government. It can be anticipated that the essential elements of the framework will be incorporated, in one form or another, into the forest management policies and regulations of each jurisdiction, if not in legislation itself. Criteria identify the environmental, social and economic elements which are essential to the sustainable development of any forest estate. They are, for all intents and purposes, common to all forest zones in all parts of the world. There is virtual unanimity internationally on four critical environmental criteria dealing with biological 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 there are different views on the elements which make up these two criteria). The Canadian Approach incorporates all six. Some undertakings include additional criteria although these most frequently represent little more than sub-divisions of the six noted above. Legal and policy frameworks have been included as a seventh criterion
The CCFM initiative on criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management is frequently referred to as â€œThe Canadian Approachâ€?.
1-5 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 if sustainability, with respect to that criterion, is to be achieved. The Canadian framework has 83 indicators spread 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 and social criteria for a number of reasons, including Canada being one of the world's leading exporters of forest products, the country's size and federated makeup, the existence of a significant Aboriginal population, the large number of communities largely or wholly dependent on forest industries, and the relative prosperity of the country and its people. This close agreement on criteria and on environmental indicators provides a solid base for international harmonization, which would allow each jurisdiction to accept other frameworks, and which would allow each to 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 management is acceptable to us and we are prepared to accept the products which you produce from forests managed accordingly.' It is important to realize that "no single criterion or indicator alone is an indication of sustainability; rather, the individual 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 related values over time". It is further important to recognize that the criteria and indicators framework developed in Canada (or anywhere else for that matter) "is based on the best available knowledge" and "As our knowledge of forest ecosystems and factors promoting enhancement of social and economic dimensions improves, the criteria and indicators will evolve further." (CCFM 1995). Full definition of forest resource sustainability will be achieved when benchmark or target levels are attached to applicable indicators. But the process is viable without such benchmarks. Periodic measurement of indicator status through appropriate monitoring systems, will provide reliable evidence of trends and progress towards sustainability even when the target level is not specified. Eventually, however, indicator targets will be required, if for no other reason than to maintain momentum. The ultimate objective must be the stated goal of sustainability. It would be fatal to assume that progress alone is sufficient. The current implementation planning process addresses the monitoring requirements. Additional effort will be required to establish indicator target and benchmark levels 2) Registration/certification2 systems 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 those products have indeed been derived from sustainably managed forests. This will be as applicable to producers of raw materials as it will for those selling processed products or manufactured wood-based goods. Without such evidence buyers at both the wholesale and retail levels will increasingly refuse purchase and suppliers will, 2
Certification and registration are not synonymous. By way of example, the Canadian Standards Association considers the sustainable forest management system review process to be one of registraion, not certification, and includes definitions in its guidance and specifcation documents (see sidebar). Althought the difference between the two may seem trivial, it will be of importance 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 â€œregistrationâ€? is somewhat cryptic. The concept is elaborated further in the text.)
1-6 increasingly, experience declining sales, or even loss of market access, in at least some parts of the world. As the requirement becomes more pervasive, manufacturers who buy some or all of their wood from independent producers, will place increasing pressure on those suppliers to provide their own evidence of sustainable forest management practice. Purchasers of roundwood may be forced eventually to discontinue buying from suppliers who fail to comply. Unlike the development of criteria and indicators which has seen a large degree of international cooperation and agreement, there are a variety of competing initiatives in the area of registration/certification. Many countries and regions have embarked upon undertakings to establish such procedures. They all have much the same purpose, (i.e., to confirm for domestic and international market purposes that the target lands, companies or 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 as to the intentions and sincerity of other developers. Since, at the moment, there is no broadly based standard and 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 international movement. The need, then, has been to develop a system in Canada to make registration possible and to facilitate the process by which resource owners and forest products manufacturers can, in fact, become registered. The Canadian forest industry was not slow to seek ways of responding to the sustainability movement which was threatening their overseas markets. In 1994, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, representing a large segment of the Canadian forest industry, approached the CSA to develop a Canadian sustainable forest management 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 which was expected to lead to the eventual development of an international SFM standard. In an attempt to minimize future conflict with any ISO developed standard, the CSA prepared the Canadian standard in ISO format. (The ISO, 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 which sellers of forest products can demonstrate their commitment to sustainable forest management practice and the use of materials obtained from sustainable managed forests. The registration process is applied to a defined land 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 into a registration audit and establishes the specifications for conduct of an audit. When all aspects of the standard are met, as evidenced by a registration audit, the forest management system can be registered as complying with the standard. A certificate of registration would then be issued for use by the forest manager in respect of the land 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 forest products 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 will be 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 no longer be avoidable, especially for large suppliers to overseas markets. The implication for smaller forest land owners 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 represented. The process was completed and finalized during 1996 with acceptance of the standard by the Standards 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 in particular, is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The Council, a non-government, independent, volunteer organization with headquarters in Mexico, is comprised of participants from numerous countries. It has been in existence since 1993 and has developed its own set of principles and criteria for the evaluation of forest land management practice. The FSC does not, itself, conduct evaluation audits, but has established itself as an accreditor of certification organizations. It has developed formalized procedures for accreditation and guidelines for certifiers which are designed to bring structure and standardization to the certification undertakings of accredited organizations. The purpose of the FSC's accreditation procedure is to permit a guarantee of authenticity of the claims of forest products producers and manufacturers that their products are derived from sustainably managed forests. The FSC has developed a set of 10 principles of forest management and their attendant criteria. They are international in scope and do not contain nation-specific elements. As a result, they cannot deal with the specific or unique aspects of national, or even regional, environmental, social and economic conditions. As a further result, the FSC has stated quite definitively that their principles and criteria are meant to be supplemented by local sustainable forestry REGISTRATION refers to the"procedure by standards. Terminologically, the FSC principles and criteria equate, roughly, to the criteria and indicators of the Canadian Approach. They include many of the environmental, social and economic elements of the Canadian Approach but go somewhat further in that they incorporate also some elements of the CSA SFM Standard, namely management planning and monitoring and assessment. In Canada's case, the FSC is more of a parallel initiative than a complementary one. Its main advantage, at this time, is that it is an operating process which provides an opportunity for producers and manufacturers to gain some claim to authenticity while the more specific programs of countries such as Canada and, ultimately, the ISO, are developed and put in place. As with the CSA process, an FSC supported certification is voluntary and resource owner initiated and funded.
which a registration organization indicates relevant characteristics and particulars of a registrant's Sustainable Forest Management System in an appropriate and publicly available list following a successful registration audit". CERTIFICATION refers to the "certificate of registration" or the "official document issued by a registration organization to the registration applicant upon successful completion of a registration audit".
REGISTRATION AUDIT refers to "a systematic and documented verification process to objectively obtain and evaluate evidence to determine whether the performance of a Sustainable Forest Management System and the defined forest area under that system conforms to the registration audit criteria....".
The FSC has looked askance at the CSA process because it was promoted by Canadian industry and is being developed by an agency (the Canadian Standards Association) that fosters improved access to foreign markets by Canadian companies. Although these facts are true, such a view tends to overlook the fact that the CSA Standard is founded upon the Canadian criteria and indicators framework, a scientifically sound, publicly
1-8 developed undertaking which itself is being well received internationally. It may well look askance also at the Helsinki and Montreal Processes because they are government sponsored initiatives with all the potential biases that that may entail. This would tend to ignore the fact that great strides have been made in recent years through UNCED and the criteria and indicators initiatives internationally to move forward with the implementation of sustainable forest management, Some examples of Canadian undertakings which have been heavily supported agencies currently having Codes of and endorsed by most of those same governments. Practice in effect The FSC believes that its own approach to certification is unassailable because it is nonOntario Forest Industries aligned (with government or commercial interest) Association and because, in its role as the "accreditor of certifiers", it alone is able to determine those Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill companies which are suitable to conduct certification audits. As suggested earlier, the FSC Owners Association approach to certification is only one of several Alberta Forest Products Association options that may be considered by those wishing to market their forest products
Province of British Columbia
3) Codes of practice Codes of practice are quite different from the foregoing types of initiative. They are generally
Eastern Ontario Model Forest La FĂŠdĂŠration des Producteurs de bois du QuĂŠbec
(but not always) much less formalized and range from single sheet foldouts to modest publications to, infrequently, complex documents embodied in legislation (the case in British Columbia). There is little mystery about them. They are most commonly developed by organizations as guides for the conduct of members. They may be couched in very general terms or they may set out in very specific terms the responsibilities of member organizations or individuals. Contrary to the application of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, or the undertaking of a registration/certification process, they are frequently not voluntary. Often they become a condition of membership which may, in the extreme, be revoked by the parent 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 effective response to growing social or customer demand for responsible action as a means of making an undertaking or product more acceptable. Difficulties generally only arise when a member fails to adhere to the code and the 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 the case of forestry, many organizations are attempting to incorporate basic sustainability elements in their codes of practice in recognition of failings of the past and the expectation that improvement will benefit society as well as the organization' members. Sustainability elements are frequently only part of code content which aims at guiding members in other areas covered by the parent organization as well. They often contain reference to other guides (e.g., the criteria and indicators of the Canadian Approach) which may or may not be code requirement.
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 them are integral and inextricable. They are not covered by any mutual agreement, formal or informal, but are simply 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 that constitutes sustainability; what it is that must be known to achieve sustainability. Criteria and indicators are being used to describe the critical elements of sustainable forest management and to provide a working definition. It is this definition that forms the basis for forest management registration/certification systems and codes of practice. Without it, or something equally defining, it is not possible to undertake these two types of initiative in any meaningful way. Therein lies the essential link amongst the three types of initiative and it is this fundamental comprehension that must be grasped. Each registration/certification scheme for sustainable forest management incorporates the fundamentals of sustainability to some degree or other. The CSA standard incorporates the Canadian Approach criteria as written. They form the basis for the standard and for, ultimately, the accommodation of market concerns over sustainability domestically and internationally. Although the CSA standard is much more loose in its incorporation of indicators, all critical areas covered by the Canadian Approach indicators must be considered in an audit review. Determination of whether each is adequately considered is made by the auditor and contributes towards the overall determination for registration of the forest area being audited. As noted, the FSC has developed its own set of criteria and indicators (principles and criteria) but their use by certified auditors is essentially the same as for the CSA process Being less formalized, codes of practice generally do not incorporate criteria and indicators directly. More commonly, they utilize the basic concepts of sustainability as described by criteria and indicators but couch them in their own terms to satisfy the principles of sustainability in a manner which member organizations have agreed 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-date applicable registration/certification processes. It is quite conceivable, however, that umbrella organizations such 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 a required undertaking. In such case, a CSA standard or an ISO standard may well become an integral part of such codes. In practice, an organization, or group of organizations, is free to choose the extent to which it wishes to incorporate any of the three types of initiatives. A code of practice is something that can be developed and incorporated immediately. It is generally a straightforward undertaking and does not require functional tie to any of the other initiatives. Application for registration/certification is undertaken by individuals, organizations or 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 registration is applicant and area specific. The successful registrant alone is free to use the registration to promote its products. Criteria and indicators have been developed by the CCFM as a guide for those in Canada who wish to practice sustainable forest management. The indicators described by the CCFM are considered to be national in context, however, and may not have full applicability at the local or regional level. Although many national indicators 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. Monitoring and assessment capabilities are not yet complete or adequate. Benchmark levels for indicators are not in place and may not be for some time to come. The costs of implementing sustainable forest management practice may not 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 or association would be registered and costs would be shared. Collective members would be required to adhere to 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 management practice at all. Obviously, the markets are not going to be shut down immediately. Many markets may remain forever unrestrictive. Whether the most lucrative for Canadian producers will become closed is a matter of future resolution. The no-action approach is decidedly shortsighted and fails to recognize the validity of Canada's National Forest Strategy or growing global concern as debated at UNCED. Can resource owners and managers and wood-based producers afford to wait and see. Many believe that inaction is not in their best interests and have taken early action, e.g., the Canadian forest industry through the CSA and the Model Forest Program. Ultimately, it can be anticipated that public pressures will force the issue and that the majority of forest land owners will be expected to implement socially responsible forest management practices whether they sell 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 initiatives discussed above are being undertaken. The need for sustainable forestry is humanity driven. Sustainable forest management is not an act of benevolence but an essential undertaking to ameliorate human impacts which, to date, have served mainly to degrade the forests of the world. Without the pressures of human activity, whether direct or indirect, the forests of North America, Canada, eastern Ontario would endure. They would change over 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 for enjoyment 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 to avoid 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 available not only for present use but also for future use. Given the foregoing, the primary implication with respect to the initiatives discussed above is commitment; the commitment to utilize whatever means are available to achieve sustainability of the forests of eastern Ontario. A number of specific implications for each of the three types 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 things that constitute it and without some basis for establishing the goals to be achieved. And yet that is the way it is viewed in many quarters and is the reason why frequently only lip service is paid to implementing sustainable forest management practice. Further, it is axiomatic that there must be grounds for agreement amongst those implementing sustainable forest management practices if the end product is to be widely accepted.
1-11 Scientifically-based criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management are the principal means by which the forest nations of the world believe this can happen. It is only a short leap of logic to conclude that, if much of the world views the six criteria and their component indicators as the working definitions of sustainability, those concerned with smaller parcels of land will need SOME IMPLICATIONS to have a similar view. Criteria and indicators, or some equally defining approach, are fundamental to the
achievement of forest sustainability. It will be necessary for the EOMF to adopt and implement (assessment/monitoring/ reporting) a framework of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. It should be based on the CCFM framework and should incorporate all six criteria as well as many of the indicators of that framework. The challenge will be to select indicators for each criterion, whether in the CCFM framework or not, that appropriately accommodate local environmental, social and economic conditions while satisfying the broader tenets of sustainable forest management in general. An EOMF-specific framework has been proposed by the author in the more detailed report upon which this publication is based as a starting point. A final framework would most appropriately be developed through EOMF partner discussion and consensus.
Criteria and Indicators Adopt and implement criteria and indicators Undertake sustainable forest management activities Communications and education are key Develop funding and become self-sustaining
Sustainability is not a one shot undertaking. It is a long-term objective which will only be accomplished
C C C C
C C C C
Registration/Certification Not a requirement for EOMF Needed by suppliers of raw products for overseas markets Costly and ongoing Subject to periodic renewal and revocation
Codes of Practice Guidelines Desirable for EOMF Unlikely to be binding on members Evidence of commitment
over many years. Progress towards sustainability will be predicated upon the development of appropriate strategies and a strong program of sustainable forest management activities aimed at improving the values covered by the indicators adopted. Funds will be at a premium and much of the energy of the EOMF will have to be directed towards financing its sustainable forest management activities. There will be a need to "spread the word" as diligently as possible to motivate others to become involved. Communications and education will be the keys. As government funding will be limited, the EOMF will have to seek independent funding sources and strive to become self-sustaining over time. 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 from sustainably managed forests. It is not evidence of sustainability but, insofar as it is a carrot for the practicing of 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? The simple answer is "no". But if you are a producer of products being sold in overseas markets, or if you are a supplier 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 agent for 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 been felt. It is not certain whether the demands will remain localized and limited or will develop into a ground swell that will eventually affect a large percentage of the world's suppliers of forest products. At present, the main impact is being felt in Europe where various governments and consumer groups have boycotted forest products from certain countries and certain forest products from certain companies. With growing environmental awareness and diminishing sources of supply, the likelihood is that there will be a gradual increase in the global demand for "green" products and that this will filter through to at least the larger international suppliers of forest products. If sufficient pressure is placed on the larger exporters, it is reasonable to expect that, sooner or later, they will begin to demand at least some measure of sustainable forest management practice on the parts of their domestic suppliers, including small woodlot owners who use their forest properties as a means of revenue. This may present a serious financial dilemma for small woodlot owners who generally do not have large amounts 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 sustainable management practice. Small land owners may be able to avoid the requirement for registration/certification for some time, perhaps their lifetime. It will depend on how rapidly the movement develops and how important it is to sell products in markets that are subject to green consumerism. To date the movement has not been particularly strong in either Canada or the U.S., but there are signs that it is just a matter of time. The North American public is beginning to feel the desire for "sustainable forest management" even if this has not yet been translated into much action at the sales counters. For small woodlot owners who wish to pursue registration/certification, the most feasible approach at present would seem to be the formation of collectives which would act on behalf of individual land owners. A collective could be registered/certified, with members sharing the cost, on the premise that the members of the collective do, in fact, practice sustainable forest management. Registration/certification should not be considered lightly or entered into on whim. It will be costly. And there will be ongoing cost. Ground inspections, as well as forest management plan and operating practice inspections can be expected as part of the audit process. Registration/certification will have to be renewed on a regular basis, approximately every five years, with the application of a new audit undertaking. Evidence of continuing sustainable management practice will be required. The forest products of a collective would be designated as coming from sustainably managed forest land by virtue of the collective's registration/certification and the members agreement to so manage their lands. A strong onus would be placed on each member to hold up his end of the bargain since failure by individuals to do 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 is operational and it has accredited a number of international agencies to undertake certification audits. There is no evidence at this time that this enhances the saleability of products on the international market but it is not likely 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 move ahead in much the same way as that of the FSC. Products coming from registered/certified,sustainably managed 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 14000 environmental management standard. This is not yet in place for forestry and may not be for a number of years yet but ISO is moving in that direction and it would seem to be only a matter of time. The CSA scheme has been designed to be compatible with the ISO standard and is, as has been noted earlier, a potential model for an ISO-developed standard. It is premature to attempt to judge whether or not the FSC certification approach will 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 use of their members. They usually describe codes of conduct for the practice of a member's business. They may or may not be requirements for membership but flagrant abuse of a code would not doubt be cause for review of 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 sustainale forest management. It provides necessary guidance to EOMF members, and others in eastern Ontario, who wish to practice SFM. While it may be impractical for an organization like the EOMF to include implementation of criteria and indicators, or registration/certification, as a requirement of membership, a collective that wished to become registered/certified would certainly have to require adherence to sustainable forest management principles. As noted above, it would then be almost mandatory for the members of such an organization to incorporate 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 members of an organization have common beliefs and are expected to conduct their businesses in a certain way which is public knowledge. It is also a statement of commitment, without which there can be no assurance that a prescribed course will be followed.
A Brief Analysis of the CCFM Criteria and Indicators Framework and 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 and assessment of sustainable forest management in Canada. The criteria and their indicators identify those elements which are, at present, considered to be essential or important to the sustainability of forest-related values. The framework is national in scope. It was designed to provide common ground for the development of sustainable forest management policy on a broad regional basis, i.e., provincially and territorially as well as for areas of federal responsibility, and to facilitate reporting of progress on sustainable forest management nationally and internationally. The framework is based on the best available knowledge and understanding of forest ecosystem processes. It is based also in the belief that the needs of society are an integral part of sustainable forest development. The
1-14 framework is not immutable. New knowledge in either area would lead to improvement of our current understanding of forest sustainability which could lead, in turn, to revision of the framework. It should not be anticipated, however, that there would be dramatic change. Rather, it is likely that there will be an evolution and gradual refinement of the framework which should lead to continuing improvement of sustainable forest management 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 first reporting will test the system and determine with greater clarity data availability and the difficulty in collecting and synthesizing data. It is anticipated that reporting will become increasingly comprehensive, with improving quality, as experienced is gained and as new and more efficient monitoring systems are employed in the gathering of data.
The Criteria The six criteria of the CCFM framework are mirrored in the other major criteria and indicators initiatives currently underway around the world. They are intuitive to a large extent and are recognized as the essential elements of forest sustainability no matter what the context. As such, they are the basis for common understanding amongst nations participating in the international sustainable forestry dialogue. The four environmental criteria (Criteria 1-4) address the forest ecosystem and its contributions to global ecological cycles. They are not dependent on human intervention, although they take into consideration forest responses 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 nonmonetary benefits over the long term. In the case of the former, this "economic" criterion considers benefits such as commercial wood products, non-wood products, tourism and employment while in the latter wildlife, recreation, aesthetics and wilderness value benefits are considered. The CCFM Criteria The social criterion (Criterion 6) addresses the notion that sustainable development is, ultimately, about people. As stated in the CCFM booklet, A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators, "it is about society's values, the quality of life of members of society both individually and collectively" and the effectiveness with which we manage our resources "in the best interests of present and future generations". The criterion is concerned also with "how we deal with the special and unique needs of particular cultural and/or socio-economic communities, and the extent to which the allocation of our scarce resources can be considered to be fair, equitable, balanced, and just".
1. Conservation of biological diversity 2. Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity 3. Conservation of soil and water resources 4. Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles 5. Multiple benefits to society 6. Accepting society's responsibility for sustainable development
1-15 The Indicators The 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 the Canadian forest community and by Canadian technical experts. A basic principle of the process was that an indicator would be included if deemed important and would not be weeded out just because it appeared difficult to implement or monitor, or because there were little or no data available. A valid "definition" of sustainable forest management was the key consideration. Data sourcing would be worked out over time for all of the indicators. There was no difficulty in coming up with suggestions for indicators. The challenge was to keep the number of indicators to a manageable level while covering the essential elements of sustainability. Although the group of 83 indicators eventually selected may be viewed as onerous from an implementation point of view, it is not as all-encompassing as some would have preferred. Nor does it deal with particular interests to the extent that some would have liked. Notwithstanding, the indicators selected do represent a consensus view of sustainability. 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 considered to be matters of policy. The matter was flagged, however, as an essential eventual need if sustainability is to be 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" approach will be employed. In the absence of standards or threshold levels, monitoring will be aimed at identifying trends and 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 evaluate each indicator, the use of proxy indicators will be one solution. Also, while many of the indicators can be assessed quantitatively, there are others for which only a descriptive assessment is possible. In these cases the current 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 by criterion. As the CCFM booklet notes "the individual criteria and indicators must be considered in the context of other criteria and indicators". Only in this way will we be able to determine whether or not progress is being made towards forest sustainability. It is therefore important that as complete data as possible are gathered for the range of criteria and indicators. There are no data requirements for the criteria themselves. Data for the criteria are bound up in the individual indicators. Criterion by criterion reporting will be accomplished through the roll-up of information obtained from 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 CCFM analyzed and rated each indicator for data availability in the lead-up to the proposed national reporting. As part of the process, the TC identified information gaps and proposed approaches for filling those gaps. Time frames, costs and responsibilities for obtaining missing information have been suggested. Difficulty of obtaining missing data has also been estimated. It is believed that most of the gaps can be addressed over a one-to-five-year period. Many can be addressed within a year of startup. Still others are considered developmental and can only be addressed over lengthier time frames of up to 10 years.
1-16 Given that indicators were developed without dependence upon data availability, it is not surprising thatmany data gaps currently exist. What may be surprising is that the indicators are covered as well as they are. The three-class data availability rating system developed by the TC, 40% of the indicators were identified as having a high level of data availability and 46% as having moderate data availability with some Only 13% were identified as largely deficient.3 On a weighted basis, Criterion 2 (Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity) and Criterion 4 (Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles) are deemed to have the high overall indicator information availability whereas Criterion 3 (Conservation of soil and water resources) has low availability. The other three criteria are nearly equal and could be considered as "middleof-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. Somecan be provided through current information systems. Given the recent advent of interest in sustainability, many existing monitoring or data collection systems were not developed for the purposes of reporting on sustainable forest management. Some of these can be modified or upgraded to serve a more integrated purpose. Others will be used only until better systems are in place. Data will be obtained from well-organized collectors with sound monitoring and analysis procedures but data reliability will have to be carefully scrutinized. The CCFM TC has focussed on the reliability concern and has built into its proposed approaches mechanisms to address the numerous needs. Collaborative strategies are being developed for the employment of existing monitoring systems, where sufficient and reliable, and for the development of new monitoring systems where current capabilities are inadequate or non-existent. Reliability will 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, itself an agglomeration of data from provincial and territorial data gathering systems. Statscan will provide data for many areas of the socio-economic indicators. Some indicators, for example those addressing the concerns of Aboriginals, will be covered by information obtained from special interest groups such as First Nations sources. Numerous other specific sources will be used also for data and information. (See sidebar for examples.) One significant area where a regression in data collection seems to be occurring is that related to the former Forest Insect and Disease Survey (FIDS) of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS). Until recent and terminal cutbacks, FIDS was seen as the principal source for a number of the forest health and condition indicators of Criterion 2. Although parts of the FIDS responsibilities will be incorporated into the CFS's proposed Forest Health Network, and other parts may be privatized, it is difficult to see as thorough and comprehensive data being available as was previously the case.
Difference due to rounding.
1-17 Although indicator monitoring and data collection are essential first elements, data reliability and usability are equally 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 analysis systems (now virtually all computerized), a task that may be Data and Information as onerous as the setting up of the monitoring systems Sources The Assembly of themselves. Such systems will also have to be modified or upgraded, or developed where lacking. First Nations Periodicity of data collection will vary widely. Some indicator parameters will be monitored annually but the more common frequency will be once every 2-5 years. Some indicators, for example those relying on provincial forest inventories, may be measured no more often than once every ten years. Further, data collection points for all indicators will rarely, if ever, coincide. As a result, the status of forest sustainability and progress towards full sustainability will be difficult to assess accurately at any given time.
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Canadian Forest Service Forest Health Network National Forestry Data Base Biodiversity Network Canadian Pulp and Paper Association Environment Canada Canadian Wildlife Service National Conservation Areas Data Base Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada National Water Data Base National Aboriginal Forestry Association Ontario Forest Industries Association Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Statistics Canada Ontario Ministry of
Frequently, data will be old before they are available for use. The provincial forest inventories are, again, a good case in point. A large province is never surveyed completely for forest inventory purposes in a single year. It could take up to ten years to complete data collection. The job is simply too large. Data are then compiled and analyzed over a period of one to several years. By the time they are available for inclusion in a criteria and indicators reporting they do not represent the current condition. Data reliability then, while accurate at the time of collection, will be arguable by the time it is available. The combining of ten forest inventories plus federal inventories only amplifies the problem. Similar circumstances will exist also with Stats Can data, particularly the information which comes from census data gathered only once a decade. The situation is not unique to Canada. It emphasizes the importance of trend reporting and the reliance that will have to be placed on it for the monitoring of sustainable forest management initiatives world wide. The Canadian reporting team is cognizant of the difficulty and will be taking available steps to minimize the impact on overall reporting on 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 in sustainable forestry at the national level. It is not intended as a tool for assessing sustainability directly at the local level. The six criteria of the CCFM framework, apply almost regardless of the size of the target area. The difficulty
1-18 for local area reporting lies with the indicators. Although many of the indicators may be used locally, others cannot simply because they are too broad in scope. Some, although having local applicablility, may not be locally implementable because data is sparse or unavailable. Monitoring systems frequently do not aggregate data 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 forest sustainability. As a result, indicator selection is not entirely a matter of free will. They must conform as closely as possible to an accepted norm. Deviations from the norm should be appropriately justified, to the extent that observers 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 employed to 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 and international sustainable forest management initiatives. Because of its multitude of land uses, its diversity of forest land ownerships, its high degree of forest land fragmentation, and its ease of access by leterally millions of potenial users, the EOMF planning area presents a number of chanllenges which are unique in the Canadian Model Forest Progra. Thus the indicators drawn from the CCFM framwork, which would form the majority of the local area framwork, whould be augmented by 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 indicators considered important for assessing progress towards forest sustainability in the EOMF planning area. Of these, 66 have been taken directly from the CCFM framework.4 Another 11 indicators have been drawn from the deliberations of the CCFM WG. Although, not part of the national framework, the latter were included in a group on indicators considered by the WG to be of importance in the assessment of sustainability at the local level. The full set proposed for the EOMF is listed in Appendix A, along with estimations of local priority, and data 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 not only data availability and reliability, but also the ease of obtaining data and the work likely to be needed to put the 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”.5 As with the national framework, difficulty in implementation was not viewed as a reason for omitting indicators. These serve 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 apporpriately evaluate the state of the forest sustainability within the EOMF’s mandate. The determination should represent a consensus view. The task should be undertaken by the EOMF partners in open forum and in consultation with local stakeholders. Informed input from sustainability experts should be a part of this process which should be considered the initial activity to be taken in the development of a sustainability implementation plan. Local area values must be addressed. Appropriate indicators must be developed for values so identified and not otherwise addressed by the broader framework.
Explanation is given in the report as to why the other 17 indicators of the CCFM framework have not been included.
The reader is cautioned that the implementability ratings, although based on fairly extensive author knowledge and on enquireds made as part of this undertaking, are subjective and should be subjected to local review.
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 made or cannot be demonstrated. A commitment must be made to follow through with each indicator chosen since, as noted previously, sustainability is not measured by individual indicators nor even by individual criteria. The assessment of sustainability, particularly in the absence of standards, is a question of trends rather than absolutes. Sustainability is not immediate nor is it likely to occur in the short term. Indeed, it may be difficult to know when, if ever, it is achieved. Rather than attempting to untie such a Gordian knot, the goal should be to enhance the likelihood that the forest will survive as a viable and productive entity and that its values will be available to future generations in a condition at least as good as at present. This must be seen as a long-term objective. A strategy for making progress towards sustainability will be necessary. Once the local area framework has been put in place, the current status of the values being considered much be determined, where not already known. Baseline data must be established from which individual indicator and overall sustainability trends will eventually be determined. Knowledge of the availability of data and the ability to assess and monitor each indicator over time mush be refined in order that long-term implementation strategies may be developed. Gaps in indicator knowledge and needs for new sources of data must be identified. Realistic estimates of the costs of full implementation will be required and adjustments in expectation will have to be made. A well conceived public information and education program, will need to be put in place. Remedial forest 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 forest management. It will require the involvement of those who have expressed no interest to date and may well require the input of some who do not care about, or even agree with, the concept of sustainability or the principles espoused by the EOMF. A long-term commitment t action will be required and there will be hurdles to overcome. The vision of the EOMF is â€œ to champion the concept and practice of sustainable forestry for all its values in eastern Ontario through the cooperative efforts of its residents and supporters.â€? The development of a framework of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management is an essential first step in realizing that vision. The implementation of the framework through assessment, monitoring and reporting may well be the only way to determine if substantive progress is being made towards achieving it.
3.0 REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS Anon. 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). 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 the management, 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 in Helsinki. 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 Conference on 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 Sawmill Operators Association. 4 p. Manotick, Canada Anon. 1995. Forest practices code of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. Numerous documents. Victoria, Canada. Anon. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal 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 Stewardship Council. 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). Canadian Standards Association. 12 p. Pre-publication draft.
Published on Aug 26, 2010