4.0 Article

Reviewing Canada's national framework of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management

期刊

FORESTRY CHRONICLE
卷 81, 期 1, 页码 73-80

出版社

CANADIAN INST FORESTRY
DOI: 10.5558/tfc81073-1

关键词

Canada; Canadian Council of Forest Ministers; criteria and indicators; C&I; sustainable forest management; review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers' (CCFM) framework of Criteria and Indicators (C&I) for Sustainable Forest Management, published in 1995, provide a science-based framework to define and measure Canada's progress in the sustainable management of its forest. In 200 1, the CCFM launched a review of its C&I to ensure the continued relevance of the indicators to Canadian values and to improve the ability to report on indicators. This paper describes the three-step review process, which engaged a broad array of representatives of various sectors of society. First, focus groups were used to identify public values, issues and concerns with respect to the sustainable use of Canada's forest. Second, technical experts from across the forest sector revised the indicators. Third, the revised C&I were validated with users of the framework. The revised framework, released in September 2003, consists of six criteria and 46 indicators. The number of indicators has been reduced, compared to the 1995 framework, by focusing on indicators that are most relevant to Canadians' values, are most often measurable with available data, and are understandable to policy makers, forest managers and an informed public. Links between criteria are better defined and, in some cases, indicators address multiple values under different criteria. A number of tools and techniques originally developed for use at the sub-national level were adapted for use at the national level in this review. Canada's experience with reviewing its indicators may serve as an example and model to other countries now considering reviewing their national C&I frameworks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据