Reporting on pan-European criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: Experiences from Liechtenstein 2003

In order to monitor and report progress towards sustainable forest management (SFM), the third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) adopted a set of pan-European criteria and indicators in Lisbon in 1998. The criteria and indicators cover economical, ecological and social-cultural aspects of sustainable forest management at the national level. After a revision required by the same conference, an improved set of 35 quantitative pan-European indicators for SFM was adopted at the fourth MCPFE in Vienna in April 2003. The quantitative indicators require certain statistical information, specified by a number of classifications and attributes. This information has to be reported at the national level in order to enable a comprehensive picture of forests and their management within Europe. In 2002-2003, the Principality of Liechtenstein together with the Chair of Biometrics and Forestry Informatics of the Technical University of Dresden conducted a national case study aiming at a comparison between international data demands on one hand and national data availability on the other. In total, almost 200 data attributes were checked and analysed with respect to data availability and data potential. Results show large discrepancies between data demand and data availability. For some indicators the difference between the data required and data availability was enormous. Data were available for only 55% of the required attributes. Reported data and information were partly subject to certain restrictions and did not always completely fulfil the data requirements. The data availability (and also the reasons for no data being available) varied from indicator to indicator, and even from criterion to criterion. Based on the analysed data availability and the documented data report it was also possible to evaluate the available and reported data according to their data source as well as to their temporal and spatial resolution. In doing so, an extensive picture of the current data situation for Liechtenstein (data availability plus data consistency) is presented

A fenntarthatóság mérése az erdÅ‘gazdaságban

A fenntarthatóság mérése, de definiálása is nehézkes a jövÅ‘re vonatkozó feltételezések bizonytalansága miatt. Korlátozott következtetések vonhatók le pl. a „kereslet és kínálat†összehasonlításának elvén alapuló, egyre közismertebb ökológiai lábnyomból, vagy más, a fenntarthatóság bizonyos aspektusait részletesebben jellemzÅ‘ indikátorok tényleges értékeinek és az elÅ‘re elvárt értékek összevetésébÅ‘l. Ilyen, fejlÅ‘dÅ‘, korlátozott lehetÅ‘ségeket nyújtó indikátorrendszer jött létre az erdÅ‘gazdálkodásban. A rendszer használatát nagymértékben korlátozza, hogy megalapozatlan az, hogy hány, illetve mennyire specifikus vagy mennyire aggregált indikátorokat alkalmaznak, és hogy az indikátorok mért értékeit hogyan értelmezik. Emiatt az indikátorértékek értelmezésében még az olyan nemzetközi szervezetek is alapvetÅ‘ hibákat követnek el, mint a FAO. A tanulmány a fentieket több olyan példával is illusztrálja, amelyeket a fenntarthatóságban évszázadok óta élenjáró ágazatból, az erdÅ‘gazdálkodásból vettünk. Az ágazatból származó „jó†példával – egy bioindikátorral – mutatjuk meg ugyanakkor, hogy lehet megfelelÅ‘ aggregált mutatókat találni. A fenntarthatósági mutatók értelmezéséhez szükséges azonban, hogy pontosan ismerjék ezeknek a mutatóknak a viselkedését, és hogy definiálni tudják, hogy – idÅ‘ben változó módon – milyen tartományon belül vélelmezhetÅ‘ a fenntarthatóság. Az, hogy mi számít „jó†és „rossz†irányú változásnak, minden mutató esetében a vizsgált rendszer (pl. az erdÅ‘k, ill. az erdÅ‘gazdálkodás) elemzésétÅ‘l, illetve a rendszer megértésének színvonalától függ (pl. az erdei ökoszisztémák működését még kevéssé értjük). Az eredményesen alkalmazható operatív indikátorrendszernek megfogalmazhatók a kritériumai, de az is lehet, hogy esetenként azzal juthatnak elÅ‘bbre, ha a fejlÅ‘désre ugyanúgy tekintenek, mint ahogyan saját testének jelzéseire figyel egy beteg, de okos ember. ------------------------------------------------------- The insecurities in assumptions about the future make it difficult to measure and define sustainability. Only limited conclusions can be derived from the “ecological footprintâ€, an ever spreading concept based on comparing “demand†and “offerâ€, or from comparing the actual value of other indicators representing more detailed aspects of sustainability with the expected values. Such a system of indicators has bee developed for forestry applications – the indicators used are still in development and the system offers limited possibilities. A major limitation stems from the fact that the number and the degree of specificity of indicators to be used are not well established, and neither is the interpretation of actual indicator values. As a result, even international organisations such as the FAO make errors in interpreting indicator values. The paper brings various examples to illustrate these points, taken from a centuries-old sector which is at the forefront of sustainability: forest management. A good example taken from forestry – a bioindicator – is used to demonstrate that it is possible to fid suitable aggregated indicators. To interpret sustainability indicators correctly, however, one needs to be aware of howsuch indicators behave exactly. This allows one to define the valid range of sustainability, as it changes with time. The judgement of whether a change is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ always depends on an analysis of the system in question (e.g. forests and forestry), as well as our level of understanding of the system (e.g. we only have a basic understanding of how forest ecosystems work). It is possible to draw up criteria applicable to effective operative indicators. Sometimes, however, in order to progress, perhaps one should act similar to an ill, but wise man, who listens to the messages of his own body.fenntartható fejlÅ‘dés, erdÅ‘gazdálkodás, fenntarthatósági indikátor, bioindikátor, sustainable development, forest management, sustainability indicator, bioindicator, Crop Production/Industries, Environmental Economics and Policy,

the role of plant sociology in the study and management of european forest ecosystems

Abstract: Forest composition is a faithful indicator of the stressors and disturbances that influence forest ecosystems, and it should be accounted for in Sustainable Forest Management policies. Indeed, the classification of forest ecosystems in forest types is considered as a key tool to improve the assessment and monitoring of forest biological diversity, and for the definition of management guidelines. Accordingly, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe has recognized the need of developing a pan-European forest classification in forest types, and has identified indicators of Sustainable Forest Management that should be applied by forest types. The classification of vegetation has always been among the main aims of the plant sociology. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of plant species composition, performed through the plant sociological approach, condenses compositional and structural information within a hierarchical system, and expresses all historical, sociological and habitat factors that influence the actual and potential vegetation. In a modern perspective the integration of plant sociology and ecological analysis represents a key to a hierarchical land classification and to the understanding of vegetation dynamics; furthermore the long history of plant sociology determined the availability of large datasets of vegetation data throughout Europe. Starting from these considerations, in this paper we briefly describe how plant sociology could represent a tool for the assessment of the indicators of SFM that should be applied by forest types, giving insights on how this discipline could contribute to the assessment of each of these indicators

Forest management after the economic transition

Germany and Scandinavia represent two paradigmatic forest management traditions, based on management for volume and management for profit, respectively. This study examines the prevailing silvicultural regimes and resulting economic outcomes in Germany and Sweden as benchmarks, and then corresponding analyses are performed for post-transition EU countries, represented by Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The analyses reveal a regional gradient where Poland stands closest to the German tradition, Latvia goes through a “scandinavisation”, and Lithuania takes an intermediate position. Poland adheres to longer rotations and follows the principle of self-sufficiency, while economic efficiency has gained increased importance in Latvia. The observed gradient is likely to be sustained in the coming decades as the survey of key forest sector stakeholders reveals ideological patterns that correlate with the pace of reform of State forestry in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia

Sustainable management criteria for agroforestry in the European Union

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio