Criterion – D: Policy, planning and institutional framework support sustainable forest management

Consultant's Initials:

RLL

BH, LL

Source:

CIFOR

Identification No. in source:

1

 

Final Identification No. (as reported in final list):

D

Class:

Forest management planning and policy

Recommendation (after field testing)

Yes

Box A:

Enter the selected criterion as stated in the source document in this space:

Policy, planning, and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management.

Box B: Attributes

Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important

original revised original

revised

(a)

(j)

(a)

(j)

Precisely defined? (clear)

3

4

Will it produce replicable results? (reliable)

1

1

Diagnostically specific? (valid)

4

4

Is it applicable for all landowners?

5

5

Sensitive?

3

3

Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust)

5

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

5

5

How relevant is this criterion?

4

4

Useable?

4

4

Box C:

Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:

The lack of institutional frameworks tend to lead to single issue management. Institutional frameworks provide structure and balance to responsible resource management. During the 1960's and 1970's everybody wanted to use forestland for something - timber production, recreation, wildlife habitat, and wilderness. This pressure on the resource resulted in development of procedures and resource policy. A flurry of legislation was passed to direct management including multiple-use Sustained Yield Act (1960), National Environmental Policy Act (1969), Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act (1970-1977), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). To encourage responsible management the Idaho Forest Practices Act passed by Idaho legislature in 1974 to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of trees and to maintain forest soil, air, water, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic habitat. The Act requires forest practices rules for state and private lands to protect, maintain, and enhance our natural resources.

Box D:

Provide bibliographic references (if any) which support your selection of this Criterion for evaluation:

Forest Practices Handbook, January 1, 1997, Idaho Department of Lands, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, 133 p.

Idaho Forest Practice Act; Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code

L.S. Davis and K.N. Johnson, 1987, Forest Management, McGraw Hill, 790 p

Box E:

Please name (give the reference of) the Criterion that overlap (come closest) to the Criterion that has been selected for evaluation:

CIFOR: 3.3 3.2 3.4

CIFOR – BAG: 1.2 1.1 2.0 3.1

CCFM: 5.0 6.3 2.0

Idaho: -

GFE: -

Box F:

Please record your notes on evaluating the Criterion (Box A) here:

Discussion centered on two issues, definition of the word "conducive" and distinction between policy, planning and institutional frameworks. This led a rewrite of the criteria which utilized the word "support" in place of conducive and the inclusion of policy and planning with the notion of institutional frameworks.

Box G: Geo-Political

Evaluate the geo-political scale on which the Criterion operates. Multiple-entries are possible but care should be taken to determine the primary thrust of the criterion.

Justify: original Revised

(a)

(j)

Global

North America

X

X

Intermountain

X

X

West

Study area

X

X

Tenure

X

X

Site

Box H: Function:
Classify Criterion according to whether it refers to the structure of the system (biophysical, social or management), function of the system, describes its composition or describes perturbations to the system.

Justify: Original revised

(a)

(j)

Structure

X

X

Function

Composition

Perturbation

Box I: Linkages

Identify linkages between Criterion, to ensure that the same or similar information is not collected twice and to ascertain whether the necessary feedback loops exist between Criterion.

The Principle has information value for the following areas/principles:

Ecological /

Biophysical: Endangered species laws, viability

Social: Aboriginal rights.

Economic: 25% funds

Forest Mngt: Multiple-use sustained yield.

Yield & harvest: Non-declining even flow

Box J:

Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A:

Policy, planning and institutional framework support sustainable forest management. This criterion is an enabling condition that supports the overall framework of sustainable forest management.