Christine Stone, Ken Old, Glen Kile, Nicholas Coopst
{"title":"Forest Health Monitoring in Australia: National and Regional Commitments and Operational Realities","authors":"Christine Stone, Ken Old, Glen Kile, Nicholas Coopst","doi":"10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.007001048.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This review examines national and regional approaches and challenges to forest health monitoring in Australia. Divergent management priorities for forests and plantations within Australia have resulted in differing interpretations of what is meant by forest health. This in turn has influenced the approaches taken to monitoring forest health. The commercial forest sector has taken a simplistic approach, focusing on the surveillance of tree condition and the extent of damaging agents that directly affect tree productivity. Resources for this task are generally restricted to high-value plantations. In order to fulfil their obligations to sustainable forest management most State forestry agencies are committed to developing regional Sustainable Forest Management monitoring programs. At the federal level there is a commitment to complying with several international conservation agreement including the Montreal Process. Forest health in these programs tends to be poorly defined. Some States have established, or are planning monitoring programs based on intensive measurements in permanent sites or plots. While current forest health monitoring programs in Australia are state-based, the need for coordination and compatibility of assessment and reporting systems is recognized. Several national and state fora exist, for example, the national Forest Health Committee and the state-based Forest Health Advisory Committees. These groups have the potential to develop and coordinate the linkage from the regional-based forest health monitoring programs up to the national level. A major driver of this process, however, will be individual State's priorities and available resources and funding.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100392,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Health","volume":"7 1","pages":"48-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.007001048.x","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.007001048.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
Abstract
This review examines national and regional approaches and challenges to forest health monitoring in Australia. Divergent management priorities for forests and plantations within Australia have resulted in differing interpretations of what is meant by forest health. This in turn has influenced the approaches taken to monitoring forest health. The commercial forest sector has taken a simplistic approach, focusing on the surveillance of tree condition and the extent of damaging agents that directly affect tree productivity. Resources for this task are generally restricted to high-value plantations. In order to fulfil their obligations to sustainable forest management most State forestry agencies are committed to developing regional Sustainable Forest Management monitoring programs. At the federal level there is a commitment to complying with several international conservation agreement including the Montreal Process. Forest health in these programs tends to be poorly defined. Some States have established, or are planning monitoring programs based on intensive measurements in permanent sites or plots. While current forest health monitoring programs in Australia are state-based, the need for coordination and compatibility of assessment and reporting systems is recognized. Several national and state fora exist, for example, the national Forest Health Committee and the state-based Forest Health Advisory Committees. These groups have the potential to develop and coordinate the linkage from the regional-based forest health monitoring programs up to the national level. A major driver of this process, however, will be individual State's priorities and available resources and funding.