As the concept of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) has evolved, governments and other stakeholders have pursued three important frameworks for defining and pursuing SFM: public land forest policies, Criteria and Indicators and certification. In Canada, these three approaches frequently operate simultaneously as policy frameworks for private firms managing forests on public lands. Harmonization of these three frameworks could create potential benefits by simplifying a complicated array of sometimes conflicting forest management standards. But there are also potential costs of harmonization that could arise out of the diverse conditions that embody SFM. The diversity of social values and ecological conditions associated with forests creates difficulties in designing processes that are representative of stakeholders' interests. Moreover, this variety poses challenges to designing standards that are sufficiently flexible to address local conditions, yet useful in contributing to SFM planning and reporting at regional, provincial and national scales. Within this context, we suggest that the diversity inherent in SFM will continue to be accommodated by multiple management frameworks, unless a single framework arises that shows itself capable of being trusted by stakeholders and of being sufficiently flexible to accommodate various definitions of Sustainable Forest Management.
