Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Indicators for Pan-European Sustainable Forest Management criteria — A practical evaluation

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Israel Journal of Plant Sciences

The growing interest in Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) led to the publication of Portuguese standard “NP 4406: 2003—Sustainable Forest Management”, the application of which is still in an initial stage. In this study, we explore how the certification phenomenon is influencing monitoring practices by describing a Portuguese forest company’s practical experience in implementing the SFM criteria and indicators recommended by this standard to areas of maritime pine, cork and holm oak, and scrub in a forest management unit in central Portugal.We adapted our evaluation methodology from the one used by the Federation of Portuguese Forest Producers (FPFP). We identify key attributes of “ideal indicators” and provide both a “good” and a “bad” example of indicators found in NP 4406 according to each attribute. For indicators that are calculated using classic forest inventory techniques, methods for gathering and treating data have been established for many years. However, for others (e.g., biodiversity, defoliation) the methods proposed by NP 4406 and FPFP revealed practical difficulties. It is also necessary to clarify the way in which forest monitoring results of this kind can be incorporated in decision-making.

Affiliations: 1: Escola Superior Agrária de Castelo Branco adahlin@esa.ipcb.pt ; 2: Escola Superior Agrária de Castelo Branco ; 3: Silvicaima Sociedade Silvícola Caima SA.

10.1560/8YPL-5K51-2BNA-BYYA
/content/journals/10.1560/8ypl-5k51-2bna-byya
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1560/8ypl-5k51-2bna-byya
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W., McBride, J.R. 2000. Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management. In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W., Harshaw, H.R., eds. Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. Barnes & Noble, USA, Chapter 17. [online] URL: http://www.harfolk.ca/ Howie/Publications/Book_conclusion.PDF, 16/01/2005.
2. Simberloff, D., Gustafsson, L., Weslien, J.O. 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management 115(2–3): 101–111.
3. Spellerberg, I., Sawyer, J. 1995. Valuation of forest resources and evaluation for conservation. In: Ferris-Khan, R., ed. Managing forests for biodiversity. Forestry Commission Technical Paper 8. Forestry Commission, United Kingdom, pp. 42–51.
4. Wittbecker, A. 1995. Afterthoughts on the long-term Implications of certi?cation. Ecoforestry 11(4). [online] URL:http://www.ecoforestry.ca/default.htm, 16/01/2005.
5. Kuuluvainen, T., Penttinen, A., Leinonen, K., Nygren, M., Korpilahti, E. 1996 Statistical opportunities for comparing stand structural heterogeneity in managed and primeval forests: an example from boreal spruce forest in southern Finland. Silva Fennica 30(2–3): 315–328.
6. NP, Norma Portuguesa 4406:2003. Sistemas de Gestão Florestal Sustentável. Aplicação dos critérios Pan-Europeus de Gestão Florestal Sustentável. Instituto Português da Qualidade, Portugal. [online] URL: http://www.pefc.org/ internet/resources/5_1185_902_?le.836.pdf, 20/01/2005.
7. Onal, H. 1997. A computationally convenient diversity measure: theory and application. Environmental and Resource Economics 9(4): 409–427.
8. Rhoades, R.E. 2000. The participatory multipurpose watershed project: nature’s salvation or Schumacher’s nightmare? In: Lal, R., ed. Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 327–343.
9. Salmon, G. 2002. Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Labels (VSSLs): The case for fostering them. “Eco-labelling and Sustainable Development” 9th Round Table on Sustainable Development—Discussion Paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France. [online] URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/6/2484601. pdf , 16/01/2005.
10. Schiller, A., Hunsaker, C.T., Kane, M.A., Wolfe, A.K., Dale, V.H., Suter, G.W., Russell, C.S., Pion, G., Jensen, M.H., Konar, V.C. 2001. Communicating ecological indicators to decision makers and the public. Conservation Ecology 5(1): 19. [online] URL: http:/www. Consecol.org/vol5/ iss1/art19, 30/01/2005.
11. Christensen, N.L. 1997. Implementing ecosystem management: where do we go from here? In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A., eds. Ecosystem management. Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, pp. 325–341.
12. Crow, T.R., Gustafson, E.J. 1997. Concepts and methods of ecosystem management: lessons from landscape ecology. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A., eds. Ecosystem management. Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, pp. 54–67.
13. Haney, A., Boyce, M.S. 1997. Introduction. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A., eds. Ecosystem management. Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, pp. 1–17.
14. Hemstrom, M., Raphael, M.G. 1998. Late-successional forests and northern spotted owls: how effective is the Northwest forest plan? In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference, August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 283–291.
15. Franklin, J.F. 1997. Ecosystem management: an overview. In: Boyce, M.S., Haney, A., eds. Ecosystem management. Applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, pp. 21–53.
16. Grif?n, T. 2001. Lake Abitibi model forest local level indicators status report: 2000. Lake Abitibi model forest, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.modelforest.net/e/home_/loca_/case_/lamfstatusrep2000.html, 16/01/2005.
17. Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D. 2002. Voluntary approaches to environmental protection: lessons from the mining and forestry sectors. Global Forum on International Investment —Discussion Paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France. [online] URL: http://www.natural-resources.org/minerals/docs/oecd/16/01/2005.
18. Buongiorno, J., Dahir, S., Lu, H.C., Lin, C.R. 1994. Tree size diversity and economic returns in uneven-aged forest stands. Forest Science 40(1): 83–103.
19. CCFM, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2002. CCFM C&I indicator review. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.ccfm.org/pdf/pdf_docs, 30/01/2005.
20. European Commission. 2005. Criteria and indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: major elements of an ongoing process. European Commission, Directorate General for Development, Brussels. [online] URL:http://europa. eu.int/comm/development/body/publications/forests/en/en1_4_z3.htm, 12/01/2005.
21. Kirby, K.J. 1988. A woodland survey handbook. Research and survey in nature conservation series report n° 11, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, United Kingdom.
22. FPFP, Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal. 2001a. Manual de procedimentos para aplicação de indicadores de gestão ?orestal sustentável. Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal, Portugal (in Portuguese).
23. FPFP, Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal. 2001b. Manual de instruções para o trabalho de campo. Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal, Portugal (in Portuguese).
24. Staudhammer, C.L., LeMay, V.M. 2001. Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31(7): 1105–1115.
25. Steinman, J. 1998. Tracking the health of trees over time on forest health monitoring plots. In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 334–339.
26. Tomé, M., Vasconcelos, M. 1998. Using a ceptometer to validate a visual evaluation of the degree of defoliation of holm and cork oak trees. In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 425–429.
27. Travers, R. 2000. Certifying sustainable forestry: an ecoforestry perspective. Ecoforestry 15(1): 2–3. [online] URL: http://www.ecoforestry.ca/default.htm, 16/01/2005
28. Turner, M. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171–197.
29. Hickey, G.M., Innes, J.L. 2001. The development of an adaptive management strategy for the Lignum IFPA. Prepared for Lignum Ltd. by The University of British Columbia, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.lignum.com/publications- research_papers.asp?currPage=12, 16/01/2005.
30. Holvoet, B., Muys, B. 2003. Comparison of standards for the evaluation of sustainable forest management between countries from the south and the north. European Tropical Forest Research Network News 30–40: 61–62.
31. Jedrzejewska, B., Okarma, H., Jedrzejewski, W., Milkowski, L. 1994. Effects of exploitation and protection on forest structure, ungulate density and wolf predation in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 664–676.
32. Bossel, H. 2001. Assessing viability and sustainability: a tems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 12. [online] URL: http:/ www. Consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art12, 30/01/2005.
33. Bunnell, F.L. 1999. 1,2,3, biodiversitycor maybe not. What should we do with our biodiversity emphasis options? Ecoforestry 14(3):17 22. [online] URL:http://www.eco-forestry.ca/default.htm, 16/01/2005.
34. Allen, T.F.H., Hoekstra, T.W. 1986. The critical role of in land modelling. In: Gelinas, R., Bond, D., Smit, B., Perspectives on land modelling. Polyscience Publications, Moutreal, Canada, pp. 9 13.
35. Battaglia, M., White, D., Mummery, D., Mohammed, C. 2004. Process-based models of plantation growth: their role in sustainable forest management. In: Borralho, N.M.G., Pereira, J.S., Marques, C., Coutinho, J., Madeira, M., Tome, M., eds. Eucalyptus in ings of IUFRO Conference, Aveiro, Portugal, 11 15 Octo ber 2004. RAIZ, Instituto Investigacao da Floresta e Papel, Portugal, pp. 3 10.
36. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Measuring what? “Measuring Sustainability” 6th Round Table on Sustainable Development—Discussion Paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France. [online] URL: http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/9/47/2731186.pdf , 16/01/2005.
37. Palmer, C., Mulder, B., Noon, B. 1998. An effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest forest plan: new approaches to common monitoring problems. In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 313–320.
38. Munro, D.A., Bryant, T.J., Matte-Baker, A. 1986. Learning from experience: a state-of-the-art review and evaluation of environmental impact assessment audits. Background paper prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Minister of Supply and Services, Canada. [online] URL: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/ 200/301/ceaa-acee/learning_from_experience-e/bp5_86e. pdf, 16/01/2005.
39. Madeira, M.V., Fabião, A., Pereira, J.S., Araújo, M.C., Ribeiro, C. 2002. Changes in carbon stocks in Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations induced by different water and nutrient availability. Forest Ecology and Management 171: 75–85.
40. Moss, I.S. 2004. Sustainable Forest Management indicators. Prepared for Lignum Ltd. by Harmeny Systems Ltd., Duncan, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.lignum.com/publications- research_papers.asp?currPage=1, 16/01/2005.
41. Lindenmayer, D.B., Margules, C.R., Botkin, D.B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14(4): 941–950.
42. Loyn, R.H., McAlpine, C. 2001. Spatial patterns and fragmentation: indicators for conserving biodiversity in forest landscapes. In: Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W., eds. Proceedings of IUFRO-CIFOR-FAO Conference on Sustainable Forest Management: Fostering Stakeholder Input to Advance Development of Scienti?cally Based indicators, Australia, August 1998. CABI Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 391–422.
43. Prabhu, R., Colfer, C., Shepherd, G. 1998. Criteria and indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: new ?ndings from CIFOR’s Forest Management Unit Level Research. Rural Development Forestry Network paper 23a. Overseas Development Institute, UK. http://www.odifpeg.org. uk/publications/rdfn/23/rdfn-23a.pdf, 15/03/2005.
44. Pommerening, A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry 75: 305–324.
45. Poschen, P. 2003. Globalisation and sustainability: the forestry and wood industries on the move—social and labour implications. European Tropical Forest Research Network News 30–40: 43–45.
46. Pereira, J.S., Silva, T., Correia, A.V., Correia, A.P. 2004. Florestas e alterações climáticas. O sequestro de carbono nas ?orestas. Ingenium 84: 62–63.
47. Nilsson, S. 2001. Future challenges to ensure Sustainable Forest Management. Interim Report IR-01-039. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria. [online] URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR- 01-039.pdf, 16/01/2005.
48. Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. A digest of indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Produced for Lignum Ltd. by PADATA, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.lignum.com/publications- research_papers.asp?currPage=11, 30/01/2005.
49. Quinta-Nova, L. 2001. Aperfeiçoamento de sistemas de classi ?cação da vegetação sob a perspectiva do seu interesse faunístico recorrendo a critérios estruturais em sistemas agro?orestais. Dois casos de estudo (Apostiça e Évora). Dissertação apresentada para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Ciências do Ambiente. Universidade de Évora, Portugal.
50. Rametsteiner, E. 2000. Sustainable forest management certi ?cation. Frame conditions, system designs and impact assessment. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Liason Unit Viena, Marxergasse 2, A- 1030 Vienna, Austria.
51. Rametsteiner, E. 2001. SFM indicators as tools in political and economic contexts: actual and potential roles. In: Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W., eds. Proceedings of IUFRO-CIFOR-FAO Conference on Sustainable Forest Management: Fostering Stakeholder Input to Advance Development of Scienti?cally Based Indicators, held in Australia, August 1998. CABI Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 107–130.
52. Lech, P.M. 1998. Reliability assessment of selected indicators of tree health. In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference, August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 377–384.
53. Lindenmayer, D.B., Gustafsson, L., Weslien, J.O. 1999. Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests: indicator species, impact studies and monitoring programs. Forest Ecology and Management 115(2–3): 277–287.
54. Whiteman, G. 1999. Sustainability for the planet: a marketing perspective. Conservation Ecology 3(1): 13. (online) URL: http:/www. Consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art13, 30/01/2005.
55. Van Den Meersschaut, D., Vandekerkhove, K. 1998. Development of a stand-scale forest biodiversity index based on the state forest inventory. In: Hansen, M., Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference, August 16–20, 1998, Idaho, USA. United States Department of Agriculture, pp. 340–349.
56. Van-Zeller, M.P. 2003. Avaliação de indicadores de Gestão Florestal Sustentável em Povoamentos geridos pela Silvicaima, SA. Trabalho de Fim de Curso. Escola Superior Agrária do Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal.
57. Vitalis, V. 2003. Science, the environment, economics and sustainable development. Keynote Paper presented to the Research School for the Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment Summer Symposium 19–20 June 2003, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France. [online] URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/9/16826944.pdf, 16/01/2005.
58. Walker, B., Meyers, J.A. 2004. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing database. Ecology and Society 9(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3/, 14/01/2005.
59. UNECE Timber Committee 2005. European Forest Outlook Study. Publication ECE/TIM/SP/20. United Nations, Geneva. http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/efsos/EFSOS_?naldraft.pdf, 04/03/2005.
60. Valentini, R., et al. 2000. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature 404: 861–864.
61. Drescher, J. 2000. Sustainable forestry certi?cation: Coming clean or covering up? Ecoforestry 15(1): 14–21. [online] URL: http://www.ecoforestry.ca/default.htm, 16/01/2005.
62. Parkins, J.R., Stedman, R.C., Varghese, J. 2001. Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest- based communities: mixed-method approach. Social Indicators Research 56 (1): 43–72.
63. Short, H.L. 1987. A habitat structure model for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 27: 289–305.
64. Le Maitre, D.C., Euston Brown, D.I.W., Gelderblom, C.M. 1998. Are the potential impacts on biodiversity adequately assessed in Southern African environmental impact assessments? Workshop on Biodiversity and Impact Assessment, Christchurch, New Zealand.
65. Wittbecker, A. 1999. Good forestry. Ecoforestry 14(2): 7–12. [online] URL: http://www.ecoforestry.ca/default.htm16/01/2005.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1560/8ypl-5k51-2bna-byya
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1560/8ypl-5k51-2bna-byya
2005-05-13
2018-09-19

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Israel Journal of Plant Sciences — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation