25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded
The use of criteria and indicators (C&I) for data collection, monitoring, assessing and reporting on sustainable forest management (SFM) has been growing since the Earth Summit in 1992, supported by eleven intergovernmental, regional and international forest-related C&I processes. The initial effor...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
MDPI
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6495 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/9/515 https://doi.org/10.3390/f9090515 |
| _version_ | 1855035685539414016 |
|---|---|
| author | Linser, Stefanie Wolfslehner, Bernhard Asmar, Fady Bridge, Simon Richard Jess Gritten, David Guadalupe, Vicente Jafari, Mostafa Johnson, Steven Laclau, Pablo Robertson, Guy |
| author_browse | Asmar, Fady Bridge, Simon Richard Jess Gritten, David Guadalupe, Vicente Jafari, Mostafa Johnson, Steven Laclau, Pablo Linser, Stefanie Robertson, Guy Wolfslehner, Bernhard |
| author_facet | Linser, Stefanie Wolfslehner, Bernhard Asmar, Fady Bridge, Simon Richard Jess Gritten, David Guadalupe, Vicente Jafari, Mostafa Johnson, Steven Laclau, Pablo Robertson, Guy |
| author_sort | Linser, Stefanie |
| collection | INTA Digital |
| description | The use of criteria and indicators (C&I) for data collection, monitoring, assessing and reporting on sustainable forest management (SFM) has been growing since the Earth Summit in 1992, supported by eleven intergovernmental, regional and international forest-related C&I processes.
The initial effort led to varying levels of implementation across countries. Several processes never went much beyond the adoption of a first set of C&I while others have made substantial progress. In recent years, interest in C&I for SFM has again increased. In light of the Sustainable Development Goals and emerging global challenges the contribution of C&I to monitor, assess and report on forest
conditions and trends is increasingly important. We compare and analyse the structure, activities and progress of the intergovernmental C&I processes. The work is based on document analysis and questionnaires sent to the secretariats of the processes and C&I experts. We found many similarities but also major differences in the structure and content of the C&I sets. The results provide a context for discussing and understanding why some of the C&I processes are successful in their work while
others have stalled. Finally, we propose the required ingredients for success for the future activities of the forest-related intergovernmental C&I processes. |
| format | info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo |
| id | INTA6495 |
| institution | Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA -Argentina) |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateRange | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | MDPI |
| publisherStr | MDPI |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | INTA64952019-12-12T14:34:19Z 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded Linser, Stefanie Wolfslehner, Bernhard Asmar, Fady Bridge, Simon Richard Jess Gritten, David Guadalupe, Vicente Jafari, Mostafa Johnson, Steven Laclau, Pablo Robertson, Guy Ordenación Forestal Bosques Indicadores Forest Management Forests Indicators Manejo Forestal The use of criteria and indicators (C&I) for data collection, monitoring, assessing and reporting on sustainable forest management (SFM) has been growing since the Earth Summit in 1992, supported by eleven intergovernmental, regional and international forest-related C&I processes. The initial effort led to varying levels of implementation across countries. Several processes never went much beyond the adoption of a first set of C&I while others have made substantial progress. In recent years, interest in C&I for SFM has again increased. In light of the Sustainable Development Goals and emerging global challenges the contribution of C&I to monitor, assess and report on forest conditions and trends is increasingly important. We compare and analyse the structure, activities and progress of the intergovernmental C&I processes. The work is based on document analysis and questionnaires sent to the secretariats of the processes and C&I experts. We found many similarities but also major differences in the structure and content of the C&I sets. The results provide a context for discussing and understanding why some of the C&I processes are successful in their work while others have stalled. Finally, we propose the required ingredients for success for the future activities of the forest-related intergovernmental C&I processes. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche. Agencia de Extensión Rural San Martín de los Andes Fil: Linser, Stefanie. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences; Austria Fil: Wolfslehner, Bernhard. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. Vienna Regional Office of the European Forest Institute; Austria Fil: Asmar, Fady. Consultor FAO; Líbano Fil: Bridge, Simon Richard Jess. Canadian Forest Service. Natural Resources Canada; Canada Fil: Gritten, David. The Center for People and Forests; Tailandia Fil: Guadalupe, Vicente. Permanent Secretariat of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization; Brasil Fil: Jafari, Mostafa. Tehran Processes Secretariat for Low Forest Cover Countries; Irán Fil: Johnson, Steven. International Tropical Timber Organization; Japón Fil: Laclau, Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche. Agencia de Extensión Rural San Martín de los Andes; Argentina Fil: Robertson, Guy. U.S. Forest Service, Research and Development; Estados Unidos 2019-12-12T14:19:57Z 2019-12-12T14:19:57Z 2018-08-25 info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6495 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/9/515 1999-4907 https://doi.org/10.3390/f9090515 eng info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) application/pdf MDPI Forests 9 (9) : 515 : 23 (2018) |
| spellingShingle | Ordenación Forestal Bosques Indicadores Forest Management Forests Indicators Manejo Forestal Linser, Stefanie Wolfslehner, Bernhard Asmar, Fady Bridge, Simon Richard Jess Gritten, David Guadalupe, Vicente Jafari, Mostafa Johnson, Steven Laclau, Pablo Robertson, Guy 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title | 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title_full | 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title_fullStr | 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title_full_unstemmed | 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title_short | 25 Years of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Why Some Intergovernmental C&I Processes Flourished While Others Faded |
| title_sort | 25 years of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management why some intergovernmental c i processes flourished while others faded |
| topic | Ordenación Forestal Bosques Indicadores Forest Management Forests Indicators Manejo Forestal |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/6495 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/9/9/515 https://doi.org/10.3390/f9090515 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT linserstefanie 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT wolfslehnerbernhard 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT asmarfady 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT bridgesimonrichardjess 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT grittendavid 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT guadalupevicente 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT jafarimostafa 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT johnsonsteven 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT laclaupablo 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded AT robertsonguy 25yearsofcriteriaandindicatorsforsustainableforestmanagementwhysomeintergovernmentalciprocessesflourishedwhileothersfaded |