Search

The aim of this paper is to identify and analyse the sets of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (C) in the Forest Europe signatory countries in terms of their origin, structure, scope and practical use in the forestry decision���making process and forest policy���making. The analysis was conducted as desk research based on available publications, including applicable legal acts, reports, research publications or conference materials. In some cases, direct contacts with local experts were also made. Most European countries with significant forest resources have introduced their sets of criteria and indicators. The Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (Forest Europe process), played a significant and positive role in this process. The set of C developed through the process served as a starting point and template for actions in member states aimed at systematizing and formalizing the monitoring of forest management in their territory. However, some countries with significant forest resources have not yet developed national sets of C This is particularly the case for six countries with a forest area of more than 4 million hectares: Germany, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Italy and Ukraine. Altogether, sets of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM) have been developed in 20 countries out of the 46 Forest Europe signatory countries, although their status and timeliness varies. In most countries, the criteria and indicators for SFM are the basis for periodic reporting on the condition of forests, communication with the public, and in some countries they are also a formal instrument for monitoring the results of policy decisions and administrative actions. We conclude that the differentiation of solutions used in individual signatory countries of Forest Europe should also be a guide for the development of the Polish set of C, which ��� referring to the developed solutions at the European level ��� should also refer to the specificity of Polish forestry and take into account the issues important for forest management in our country., Sylwan 165 (7): 519-532