Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Blaðsíða 196

to weigh different options on
how to react, and to evaluate
the urgency of the requirement
foraction (Fues 1998: 41,
BUNDand Misereor 1996: 38).
• Indicators offer a common con-
ceptual framework, which facil-
itates decision making and
consensus finding to the per-
sons taking part in the process
(Fues 1998: 42).
• Indicators are absolutely nec-
essary in order to find out
whether policy is working and
to measure progress (Gouzée
etal. 1995: 24).
A second literature search shows
limitations of indicators:
• indicators are used abusively if
they are regarded as indepen-
dent values and if the basic
relationship to the regarded
circumstances remains uncon-
sidered (Fues 1998: 41).
• "While indicators certainly help
to focus on the key issues and
highlight some significant
trends, they do not by any
means give the whole story.
They are by their nature simpli-
fications. They also relate only
to areas which can be readily
quantified and aggregated in a
meaningful way to give nation-
al statistics." (Dept. of
Environment 1996: 2)
• "The power implicit in the indi-
cators used for decision mak-
ing will lead to the selection of
unsuitable indicators or their
misapplication." (WWF and
NEF 1994b: 2)
A survey among the members of
the German and the Finnish
commissions of sustainable
development showed that the
majority of the interviewed
experts expressed the opinion
that indicators are suitable to
illustrate long-term development
or the dimension of a problem to
decision makers as well as to the
public. indicators allow national
and global comparability and
support international reporting.
Indicators are suitable to make
decision-making visible, to moni-
tor progress of policy implemen-
tation and to point out calls for
action. Further on it was men-
tioned that indicators can serve
the process of target-setting.
About one third of the inter-
viewed experts expressed the
opinion, that indicators are not
objective mirrors of reality and
that they cannot reflect values
nor clarify qualitative phenome-
na or changes.
Conclusions
Since the Rio Conference, there
has been a big effort in develop-
ing criteria and indicators for the
assessment of sustainable devel-
opment (Essmann and Linser
1997; SRU 1998). |ust a few of
those indicator systems are actu-
ally in use. Some are too com-
prehensive, have no underlying
database, are superficial or high-
ly aggregated and therefore unin-
telligible. Indicators of sustain-
able development that are based
on a theoretical background
(Linser, 1999) and an extensive
statistical database can provide
solid bases for decision-making
at all levels and contribute to
sustainable development.
Most of the already developed
indicator systems focus on the
measurement and implementa-
tion of ecological targets and
thus only represent one aspect of
sustainable development. Azar et
al. (1996), BUND and Misereor
(1996) and Walz (1997) criticize
the strong emphasis on indica-
tors of environmental status,
while the interactions of society
and ecological systems are insuf-
ficiently considered. Therefore, it
is especially important, that cri-
teria and indicators are devel-
oped for all three dimensions of
sustainability. This requires a
collective interaction of the rep-
resentatives of the social, ecolog-
ical and economic fields.
The forest sector has always
been a leader concerning sus-
tainability, due to the fact that
the origin of this concept goes
back to forest management at
the beginning of the 18^ centu-
ry. In 1992, immediately after
Rio, the development of criteria
and indicators for sustainable
forest management started
enthusiastically, for example,
within the Helsinki process
(Schneider, 1995, p.184), the
Montreal process (Kronauer,
1996, p. 1063) and the Tarapoto
process (Schneider, 1997).
Mistakes and diffi'culties
occurred, but the will to improve
can be seen everywhere. During
revision of existing indicator sys-
tems, all three dimensions of
sustainability have to be given
the sameweight. Furthermore,
concepts have to be elaborated
in a participatory approach. With
regard to this background, a new,
common definition of sustainable
forest management was laid down in
Resolution HI at the Third
Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe
in Lisbon, 1998: "sustainable forest
management is tfie stewardsfiip and
use offorests and forest lands in a way,
and at a rate, tfiat maintains tfieir bio-
diversity, productivity, regeneration
capacity, vitality and tfieir potential to
fulfil, nowand in thefulure, relevant
ecological, economic and social func-
tions, at local, national, and global lev-
els, and that does not cause damage to
other ecosystems".
194
SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l .tbl.