North American Test of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry

6.0 Conclusions

We ask a great deal from the definition of sustainability. We want "healthy ecosystems" rich in native biodiversity, "equitable" social systems, and a continual flow of goods and services for humans. When we look for examples of sustainable human systems we can find none that meet all these criteria. Certainly, history shows examples of human societies living in the same way on the same place for hundreds or even thousands of years. But the team knows of no examples where this was done without inequity or major ecological impacts.

We continue to have difficulty with the concept of sustainability. Some view it as a way to limit development, others as a hoop to jump through to ensure development can occur. Both views operate from a perspective of minimum. In one view it is minimum development, from the other it is minimum level of interference with development. The team felt that sustainability would only be helpful when we look for optimum arrangements of ecological, economic, and social values. As long as we stay in the argument of the minimums, we have not changed the nature of the debate, only changed the words we use to argue. If we fail to look for the optimal set of conditions through time, we are likely not to find it.

In addition to the basic conceptual problems with defining sustainability, the sets of criteria and indicators we tested to assess sustainability of managing forested ecosystems all have major problems:

• The tested indicator sets were developed at the national level, and do not translate well to the forest management unit. Indicators will only work when they inform management. If "management" means the people and groups making the decisions at the forest management unit, then the indicator sets provided fall short.
• Indicators will only work when they can be referenced against a target (norm or verifiers). Neither the CCFM nor the CIFOR phase 1 sets provided useful targets for virtually any of the indictors. There is a serious shortcoming in translating these national level sets to the field level.
• There is a serious challenge to overcome in the use of terminology for what is a principle, criterion or indicator. They were often confused or overlapped between and within indicator sets.
• The indicator sets tested were generally poorly documented and referenced. Where references were given, many of the key references from the relevant literature were missing. In most cases, the rationale for why a particular measure was a good measure of sustainability was absent or weak.
• The indicator sets do not address the operational issues surrounding their use. Issues of cost, replicability, data management, and quality control are not addressed. These are key issues at the field management unit. They are also the key reasons why the vast majority of all monitoring programs fail. If we are to monitor for sustainability using criteria and indicators, these issues must be addressed.
• There is still no accepted theoretical basis for the integration of ecological, social, and economic indicators. This remains a problem to be overcome.

Despite these criticisms, the team felt that criteria and indicators could fill a critical role in assessing sustainability. There are many excellent ideas in the sets of C&I tested. We accepted the majority of indicators as providing valuable understanding on the sustainability of actions in the forest. There is a long way to go to get these ideas operating and accepted at the field management unit, however. It is time to move the debate over C&I from national policy forums to the field management unit. At their heart, C&I are practical applications of knowledge. We must remember to focus on their practicality. Otherwise we will ignore many pressing and real problems while we "get the science right".

CIFOR, with the assistance of the USDA Forest Service, is showing leadership in testing criteria and indicators of sustainable forestry. The team worked to test a large number of indicators in a short time. Because of time, we could not test all indicators as fully as we would have liked. In addition, because we were testing a huge range of economic, social, and ecological indicators, we did not always have the expertise necessary to cover each indicator. CIFOR should see the Boise team’s efforts as primarily testing, rather than indicator development. The team would have welcomed the opportunity to develop a set of indicators from the ground up, but this was not possible in the test. The team feels strongly that a set of indicators developed from the ground up would have been different from the set that "remained" after indicator testing.

CIFOR has sponsored a set of academic papers on indicator development that has not been fully integrated into the existing indicator sets. The team found these papers very useful and well developed. Specifically, we refer to examples such as the genetics diversity paper of Namkoong et al. (1977) and the economics and sustainability paper by Ruitenbeek and Cartier (1978). It appears that this kind of "sponsored experts" work is an effective way to new indicators.

Sustainability, as a fundamental part of its definition, involves the integration of ecological, social, and economic values. Despite this perceived need, there is no accepted theory for integration. CIFOR could make a contribution by supporting this area of research. During the course of this test, a group of scientists submitted a paper to the team attempting to provide a theoretical basis for integration (Hoekstra et al., 1998). The team did not have the time to properly consider this paper during the test. We felt it was an important contribution, however, and submit it to CIFOR as Appendix H of this report. The ideas in this paper are intriguing and offer a theoretical basis for integrating ecological, social, and economic measures. We recommend CIFOR pursue this line of reasoning as a research focus

References