Criterion – E: Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services
Consultant's Initials: |
RLL BH, LL |
Source: |
CIFOR |
Identification No. in source: |
3.2 |
Final Identification No. (as reported in final list): |
E |
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:
A comprehensive forest management plan is available.
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 |
Will it produce replicable results? (reliable) |
3 |
||||||||
Diagnostically specific? (valid) |
3 |
Is it applicable for all landowners? |
5 |
||||||||
Sensitive? |
3 |
Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust) |
5 |
||||||||
Easy to detect, record and interpret? |
4 |
How relevant is this criterion? |
3 |
||||||||
Useable? |
3 |
||||||||||
Box C:
Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:
Forest plans provide overall direction and guidelines towards specific management targets for all resource values. The central task of applied professional forestry is to take an area of forest land and decide on the flow of outputs and implement a schedule of treatments. This is the instrumental act whereby theory and principles are translated into reality. The plan becomes the empirical validation of forest theory.
Three stategies to regulation are:
Box D:
Provide bibliographic references (if any) which support your selection of this Criterion for evaluation:
L.S. Davis and K.P. 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 3.4
CIFOR – BAG: 2.0
CCFM: 6.3 5.0 2.0
Idaho: -
GFE: -
Box F:
Please record your notes on evaluating the Criterion (Box A) here:
To achieve sustainability the first concern is to assure that a management plan has been prepared. Thus, we rewrote the criterion to make it more specifically oriented to management. In doing so, we changed the emphasis from having the plan available for comment by stake holders, to one of assuring that the plan is prepared. The issue of availability should be addressed in CIFOR- BAG 2.0 (Criterion "C"). In making a decision related to "Function" (Box H) we determined that having a plan best relates to "composition because it constitutes planned patterns of activity. The implementation of the plan is "function."
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 |
|||
Intermountain |
|||
West |
|||
Study area |
X |
||
Tenure |
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 |
|||
Function |
|||
Composition |
X |
||
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: -
Social: States objectives for all resource values.
Economic: Annual allowable harvest estimates.
Forest Mngt: Can influence public managem,ent activities.
Yield & harvest: Can influence public management activities.
Does not fit: -
Box J:
Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A:
N/A