XIV WORLD CONGRESS, Durban, South Africa, 7-11 September 2015

Sustainable Management Developments in New Zealand seen through the lens of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (C&I) framework

Tim Payn*1, Tim Barnard1, Steven Cox2, Liam Millard1, John Novis2, Alan Reid2

1 [email protected]; Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute), Rotorua, New Zealand 2 Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract New Zealand has recently completed its third national „state of the ‟ report using the framework of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators. These reports (2003, 2008, and 2015) give a very valuable picture of the forestry environment over a period when much change occurred. This paper presents some of the key changes in Sustainable in New Zealand over that period in the context of global and national drivers such as international climate change initiatives and the global economic environment, changes in national policies, and a greater market need for information on forestry‟s social license to operate. The value and utility of C&I frameworks for monitoring assessment and reporting of forest information and the effectiveness of the C&I as a communication tool is presented with examples of tools developed to both communicate data and facilitate dialogue. New developments using the C&I framework for „futures analysis‟ is also presented and discussed. Overall, C&I have proved to be a very significant foundation in providing a common language for dialogue around the meaning of sustainable forest management. They have contributed to a range of forest related activities in New Zealand including structuring and focussing research programmes, organising Forest Company monitoring programmes in support of third party certification, teaching SFM, and providing a national picture of the state of New Zealand‟s forests over time.

Keywords: Forest, Monitoring, Assessment, Reporting, Criteria and Indicators, Sustainability, Frameworks

Introduction At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio a set of Forest Principles (UNCED 1992) was announced and a number of Sustainability initiatives launched aimed at both reducing rates and managing forests sustainably for multiple products. These initiatives led to the development of Criteria and Indicators (C&I) frameworks to both describe and report progress on SFM. Criteria cover the essential components of sustainable forest management (Economic, Environment, and Social), and each criterion is underpinned by a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators that, when measured over time, give a picture of trends in conditions. New Zealand is a member of one of these sustainability initiatives, the 12 country Montréal Process 1(MP). The Montréal Process Working Group focusses on temperate and boreal forests and is concerned with the definition of SFM and development of ways of reporting progress towards

1 www.montrealprocess.org sustainability. Since 2000 the MP has produced a series of country reports, based on its 7 Criteria2 and 54 indicators, on progress towards SFM and contributed very significantly to global understanding of SFM. While C&I have mainly been used for national reporting there have been additional applications at the sub national and local level by some countries.

Objective of the paper The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the history, use and relevance of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators framework in forestry in New Zealand and highlight some developments, achievments and possible future directions.

As this paper serves as a review of the application of C&I in New Zealand, it draws on existing literature, business as usual work information gathering, and expert experience and opinion. More specifically it draws on:

 Three Montréal Process New Zealand „Country Reports‟ produced to date

 Other government and industry publications relating to forests and forest management

 A survey, based on similar projects by the FAO and ITTO to explore usage of C&I, and circulated nationally to forestry professionals.

 Interviews with several organisations spanning the forestry sector (including a government authority, research institutes and forestry associations). This work was analysed using quantifiable data (where applicable) to determine key trends and changes in sustainable forest management in New Zealand over the years since the framework was implemented, and to identify possible improvements that could be made for future reports.

Use of the Montréal Process framework in NZ The main use of the framework in New Zealand has been in reporting on New Zealand‟s progress towards Sustainable Forest Management. This has been done through 3 ‟country reports‟ in 2003, 2008, and 2015. This has led to a wider understanding of NZ forestry internationally. However this is not the only use of the framework. Elements of the Montréal Process framework have been used in a variety of contexts in New Zealand over the past 20 years, including (but not limited to) the following:

 The (now wound up) state owned enterprise Timberlands West Coast Ltd. (TWCL) incorporated MP C&I in the development of its beech management plan in the late 1990s. The purpose of this was to provide a basis for monitoring changes to biodiversity and other ecological characteristics over time as a result of proposed beech within its estates.

 Montréal Process C&I were reviewed in 2013 along with a range of other local and international monitoring initiatives to inform the design of the New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard (NZSD) environmental monitoring framework for primary industries (MacLeod and Moller 2013).

 One forest management company has developed a comprehensive monitoring plan for its 78,000 hectare operation that closely follows the Montréal Process C&I framework, with results presented annually in its Environmental Monitoring Report. This programme has resulted in a number of initiatives across the criteria including the development of the company„s own stream classification system (to minimise disturbance to fish populations through planting setback zones), as well as distribution of a “Threatened

2 1. biodiversity; 2. productive capacity; 3. health and vitality; 4. soil and water; 5. carbon and climate; 6. socio- economic; and 7. legal and institutional frameworks Species Field Guide” for field staff and contractors to encourage on-the-ground reporting and enhance the protection of biodiversity in its forests. Another forest management company with ~180,000 hectares has used the MP indicators as the basis for a monitoring system to provide evidence to support their FSC certification status.

 The New Zealand sustainable forest management standard NZS AS 4708:2014 was adapted from the Australian Forestry Standard (AS 4708:2013), which itself was developed within the framework of the MP C&I. This standard is now available for companies to have their management practises audited against and is likely to be linked to the global forest certification scheme “Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification“ (PEFC) which will enable NZ forestry companies to demonstrate their performance to a global benchmark. This is an excellent example of the utility of a common international understanding of the components of sustainable forest management.

 In 2014 Scion, working with several researchers from an indigenous Maori tribe developed a modelling tool to quantify the impact of climate change on sustainable livelihood capitals of the community within the Waiapu Catchment on the East Coast of New Zealand (Warmenhoven et al 2014). The Montréal Process C&I formed the basis of the 25 indicators used to define the status of each capital included in the model.

 The MP C&I were used to structure the synthesis of the diversity of stakeholder preferences and values for NZ forestry collected from multiple stakeholder interactions and planning documents (Hock 2013). The outcome of this synthesis was used to inform the design of the national research programme for sustainable management of planted forests

 The New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science (www.nzjfs.org) scope was reorganised to reflect the seven Montréal Process Criteria and the editorial board reconfigured to cover all of these categories. This ensured that all aspects of Sustainable Forest Management could be covered by the journal.

The survey response rate was very low, with only seven surveys returned in various states of completion despite being widely distributed to New Zealand forestry professionals. However the responses yielded some interesting insights into the use of C&I frameworks.The sentiments gathered through survey and interview responses indicate that although Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators are being used by some organisations to aid in sustainable forest management activities in New Zealand, the overall uptake of this tool is low and the information it provides at a national level is not being used to good effect. Respondents with at least 20 years experience in the forest sector felt that the state of New Zealand‟s sustainable forest management has improved in that time but were divided over whether the use of MP C&I contributed to this improvement or not. For some at the sub- national level the purpose and value of using C&I frameworks in general is unclear, while for others the complexity involved in implementing them is beyond the scale of their organisation.

Unlike some members of the Montréal Process, New Zealand does not have a formal national forest policy at present; instead relying on a suite of legislation and regulations to govern its forest management activities. One respondent suggested that in those countries with a national forest policy the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators are invariably used to support that policy and therefore an increased application of the framework at various levels throughout the sector is more likely. This is seen in Australia where State-level reporting of forestry following a modified version of the MP C&I framework is used to complement national reporting (Howell et al., 2008). If New Zealand was to move towards a single forest policy the Montréal Process framework could provide sound foundations to support it.

Progress towards Sustainable Forest Management Forest changes/trends The three country reports give us the opportunity to evaluate how New Zealand has progressed towards SFM since 2003. Comparing trends between the three New Zealand country reports is complicated by two factors: 1. the continual improvement in systems used to gather the data means that care is needed to differentiate changes in performance against an indicator from change with how the data is gathered; and 2. the Montréal Process has continued to refine and improve specific indicators. The 2003 and 2008 reports share just 20 identical indicators, while the 2014 report has 10 fewer indicators than its predecessor; although in this case this is the result of several indicators being merged. In the 2008 and 2014 reports, a simple qualitative assessment of the progress of each indicator toward greater sustainability was included, with indicators categorised with either “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” progress over the reporting period3. Combining the progress over the last two reports one could suggest that the general state of sustainable forest management has improved in New Zealand, with 48% of indicators trending in a positive direction compared to 9% showing a negative trend. The remaining 41% are stable (Figure 1). Some selected trends in sustainable forest management in New Zealand over the period of the three reports are outlined below:

 Planted forest ownership has become increasingly privatised with 94% of the plantation forest estate in private hands in 2014, up from 47% in 2003. Over the same time, management of indigenous forests has been gradually transferred to the Crown, with 76% currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Conservation4.

Figure 1. Combined average percentage of indicators deemed to be showing either positive, negative or neutral progress towards sustainability in the 2008 and 2014 New Zealand Montreal Process Country Reports. For several indicators in the 2008 report there was insufficient data to make a comparison. Note the 2003 Country Report did not include indicator progress assessments so has been excluded.

3 It is important to note that the progress against an indicator is in the context of what that indicator is measuring: e.g. a decline in annual injury rates (indicator 6.3b) would be reported as „positive‟

4 The Department of Conservation is government agency tasked with conserving New Zealand‟s natural and historic heritage.  Employment across the forestry sector has decreased with nearly 30% fewer employees in forestry and primary processing roles in 2013 compared to 2003. This is despite production increasing 25.3% over that time (MPI no date)

 As knowledge around forest biodiversity has increased over recent years, the number and status of native forest species identified as “at risk” or in serious decline has increased. Although the status of 12 threatened taxa improved between 2007 and 2014, another 59 were considered to have worsened5.

 The net removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to forests and harvested products has steadily grown since 1990, with a 76% increase in stocks over the period to 2014.

Data and the framework Owing to New Zealand‟s almost exclusive reliance on private plantation forestry for timber and wood products there is some disconnect in the quality and quantity of data reported for those forest areas compared to indigenous forests. Comprehensive plantation datasets are published annually with data obtained through national surveys of commercial forest owners, and form the basis of much of the quantifiable data found in the three Montréal Process reports. This is particularly true for indicators relating to issues such as forest extent, employment and the volume of wood removal. On the other hand, data for the indigenous forest estate (which, at an estimated 8 million hectares comprises the vast majority of forested land in New Zealand) is specialised in its detail, focusing on specific aspects of that the forest ecosystems (and how they fit with the management objectives for those lands) with figures in the reports often based on expert estimate. Access to the conservation estate is largely unregulated and free, making it difficult to quantify some of the social indicators. Efforts are underway to develop reporting systems that can better provide information on key matters such as biodiversity status, pest control, avifauna habitat and forest health. Recent improvements in New Zealand‟s reporting for climate change and the alignment of the national biodiversity monitoring network to that process6 is expected to provide valuable time series data. This disparity in data availability has resulted in some difficulty in comprehensively reporting on all of the indicators used in the Montréal Process reports, potentially meaning it may provide only a partial picture of the state of sustainable forest management in New Zealand. Conversely, the discovery of these gaps has highlighted areas for future research and consideration of how this information is gathered.

Local level application Use has been mostly at the national level but there are opportunities to look at local level application, as has been done by some forest companies. Local level usage is mainly related to support of 3rd party forest management certification activities such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). There are probably two drivers that will lead to increased local level usage – increased local regulatory demand for reporting on forest management practice and international market demands related to social license to operate. Both these cases will require some adaptation of indicators to reflect a more regional or local scale. This is starting to happen with recent studies on more „operational‟ indicators (Payn and Hock 2013) and with a focus on more detail around social aspects of the framework, and specifically cultural indicators (Pizzirani et al 2014).

5 These classifications are very sensitive to the knowledge of the species, with the Department of Conservation recently enhancing efforts to gather information on „data deficient‟ species. New Zealand‟s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity discusses threatened species in greater depth.

6 E.g. the „plots‟ (measurement locations) are the same, which simplifies the gathering of the information and the process of measurement Accessibility of forest information Access to information across the wide range of forest indicators has been difficult, often being spread across many locations and highly technical in form. This is being addressed for the planted forests resource by the development of a web based portal to provide easy access to indicator data and supporting information and knowledge. The aim is to have all information in one place and available in very visual (Figure 2) accessible and digestible form for all stakeholders as this was identified as critical to good communication (Hock and Payn 2013, Payn and Hock op.cit.).

Figure 2. Prototype of planted forest portal home page demonstrating the proposed approach of visually appealing and accessible information (http://site223618.webydo.com/)

Predictive use of C&I With the buildup of forest information from the three national reports and also from various other national forest reporting initiatives there is an increasing opportunity to evaluate trends in data and gain a robust view of the state of the forests and how they have arrived at this state. Much more value could be gained from analysis of this information and it is recommended that an in depth review of progress over the period is done. This previous approach however is backwards looking and in recent developments we have started to investigate how the Montréal Process framework might be used in a forward looking manner for strategic analysis of forestry futures. Using the framework and a drivers:pressure:state:response approach (Müller and Burkhard 2012) we have begun to explore how we might use the indicators in a predictive fashion for NZ issues such as climate change impacts, the effects of intensification of production, or development of new product streams from the forest resource. This approach utilizes the relationship between the Criteria and Indicators which are grouped to provide information on specific aspects of SFM; Figure 3 shows an example where increased forest production is targeted.

Figure 3: Example of the inter relatedness of Montréal Process indicators and consequent impacts of modifying a target value of forest productivity on those indicators. These can then be linked to indicators that can be further manipulated to manage the impact

. Positive impacts on specific indicators related to production are highlighted in green, and negative in red. Responses required related to these red flagged indicators are identified in blue, here suggesting increased regulation will be required to reduce the risk of biodiversity loss. This is simplified for illustration purposes. Figure 4 gives an example of a higher level summary graphic related to impacts of climate change where impacts are summarized by criterion and associated key impacts and responses listed.

Figure 4. Expected impacts of climate change on forests by Montréal Process Criterion with associated responses. (Green = positive impact, grey = neutral, red = negative impact)

The use of C&I in this way could have a major impact on the analysis of impacts of various drivers on New Zealand‟s forests so it is expected that there will be an increased focus on research to develop approaches to support future strategy and policy development.

Conclusions and outlook

 The framework is very valuable for presenting a comprehensive picture of SFM in New Zealand; it is internationally recognized and very locally applicable. It has enabled New Zealand to present a picture of the state of SFM in NZ from 2003 to date.

 Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators have been predominantly used in New Zealand at the national scale with some local level applications. The national picture shows improving (48%) or stable (41%) trends in 89% of the 54 indicators, with only 9% showing a declining trend between 2003 and 2014.

 Information is building strongly with three ~5 yearly reports on the state of the forests and is becoming more and more valuable and useful. Ability to report on the range of indicators continues to improve, however national data is still highly variable in coverage and quality and more effort will need to be made to improve this.

 The wider public/stakeholders have not had easy access to the wealth of forest information available and often can have misperceptions of forestry. A major effort to improve accessibility and communication of forestry information is needed through for example the planned forests portal.

 Interest in local level application of C&I is increasing, especially in the cultural area, and in linking the framework more closely to third party certification schemes – predominantly as a source of evidence of forest management quality to support social license to operate assertions in forestry markets.

 New Zealand is moving rapidly towards a much more integrated approach to its primary sector and common sustainability frameworks to represent all primary sectors to the world. The forestry experience in C&I has much to contribute.

Acknowledgements Development of this paper has drawn on a number of organisations, programmes and resources. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) supports NZ involvement in the 12 country Montréal Process Working Group (www.montrealprocess.org) and Technical Advisory Committee and has overall responsibility for the production of the New Zealand forest reports, Future Forests Research, a forestry sector research investment company supported the development of the prototype planted forest portal under the MBIE funded „Protecting and Enhancing the Environment with Forestry‟ research programme; additional support was received from the MBIE funded New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard Programme (forestry theme), and Scion through its student internship programme (Millard). Barbara Hock, Stefania Pizzirani, and Courteney Sealey are thanked for their review of an earlier draft.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

References Caswell, S.; Tomaselli, I.; & Hirakuri, S. 2014. Indicating Progress: uses and impacts of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. ITTO Technical Series No. 42. Yokohama, Japan: Available at: http://www.itto.int/direct/topics/topics_pdf_download/topics_id=3944&no=1&disp=inline [accessed 10.04.2015] Forest Stewardship Council (n.d.) https://ic.fsc.org/ Hock, B. 2013 Value-driven sustainable forest management in New Zealand. The International Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 8(4), 71-85 Hock, B.K.; Payn T.W. 2013. Visualising information: the potential to communicate sustainability. New Zealand Journal of Forestry. 57(4) 27-31

Howell C.I.; Wilson, A.D.; Davey, S.M. & Eddington M.M. 2008. Sustainable forest management reporting in Australia. Ecological Indicators, 8(2): 123-130. Macleod. C.; Moller, H. 2013. Environmental monitoring for sustainable land management in New Zealand‟s production landscapes. New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard Research Report 13/10. Available at: http://www.nzdashboard.org.nz/uploads/2/3/7/3/23730248/13_10_environmental_monitoring_framew ork_13_nov_2013_final.pdf MAF, 2002. New Zealand Country Report 2003 – Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. MAF Technical Paper 2002/21. Available at: http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/publications/montreal-process-country-report- 2003/montreal-process-technical-paper-2002-21.pdf MAF, 2009. Sustainable Management of New Zealand‟s Forests – The 2008 New Zealand Country Report on the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators. Available at: http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/publications/2008-nz-report-montreal-process/index.htm MPI, 2015. The 2014 New Zealand Country Report on the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (In Press). MPI. (n.d.). Roundwood removals database. Available at: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and- resources/statistics-and-forecasting/forestry/ [accessed 16.04.2015]

Müller, F.; & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1 (1), p26-30 Payn T.W.; Hock, B.K. 2013. A Framework and Portal for Planted Forest Sustainability Reporting. FFR report ES021. September 2013. 50pp Pizzirani, S.; McLaren S.J.; Seadon, J.K. (2014) Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 19 (6):1316-1330. doi: 10.1007/s11367- 014-0722-5 UNCED 1992. Forest Principles. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm Warmenhoven, T.; Barnard, T.; Pohatu, P.; Garrett, L.; Porou, T.; Fitzgerald, G.; Harrison, D.; Barry, L.; Ruru, W. 2014. Climate Change and Community Resilience in the Waiapu Catchment. MPI Technical Paper 2014/25. Available at: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/3344