Criterion – F: The management plan is implemented and effective in moving toward stated goals.
Consultant's Initials: |
RLL BH, LL |
Source: |
CIFOR |
Identification No. in source: |
3.3 |
Final Identification No. (as reported in final list): |
F |
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:
The management plan is effectively implemented.
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) |
2 |
||||||||
Diagnostically specific? (valid) |
3,2 |
Is it applicable for all landowners? |
5 |
||||||||
Sensitive? |
3 |
Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust) |
5 |
||||||||
Easy to detect, record and interpret? |
3 |
How relevant is this criterion? |
2 |
||||||||
Useable? |
4 |
||||||||||
Box C:
Justify your selection of the Criterion in Box A. Please ensure you discuss its relationship to theory:
This criterion was rewritten and accepted. The intent of this criterion is to test for implimentation of planned actions and test the effectiveness of those actions for achievement of desired results.
Box D:
Provide bibliographic references (if any) which support your selection of this Criterion for evaluation:
N/A
Box E:
Please name (give the reference of) the Criterion that overlap (come closest) to the Criterion that has been selected for evaluation:
CIFOR: 1.0 3.2 3.4
CIFOR – BAG: 1.2
CCFM: 6.2 5.0 6.3 2.0
Idaho: -
GFE: -
Box F:
Please record your notes on evaluating the Criterion (Box A) here:
Implementation of a plan constitutes the "function" aspect of working with forest plans.
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 |
X |
||
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 |
X |
||
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: Implementation of plans directly impacts the Ecology/Biophysical arena.
Social: There is social concern when actions do not meet plans and objectives.
Economic: Economic output can be altered and may not reach expectations when
actions do not match plans.
Forest Mngt: Implementation is forest management.
Yield & harvest: Deviations from plans can have positive or negative impacts
on future yield.
Does not fit: -
Box J:
Final version of Criterion, state only if different to definition in Box A:
N/A