Original: Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use.

Revised Wording: There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents.

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

The purpose of forest resource use is to generate benefits, including economic benefits; how these benefits are distributed (divided up) is the subject of ongoing debate (Colfer, 1995; Ruitenbeek and Cartier, 1998). How much, and to what extent, individuals, institutions and communities share in and depend upon the economic benefits of forest management to our overall understanding of the sustainable management of forests. For example, if communities continue to be economically and culturally sustained by local forests, the forests are likely being managed on a sustainable basis. However, if the health and productivity of the forests decline due to natural events or human actions, the viability of communities may be compromised. It is important to know the number and extent of forest-dependent actors and communities as well as the distribution of the benefits among them. Another aspect involves the ability of persons or communities to control their own future. People who have adequate economic resources appear to be more likely to be able to fulfill their needs and perceptions of unfair distribution can stimulate retaliatory degradation or destruction of forest resources, or other forms of conflict. Local stakeholders have the most to gain from responsible forest management and the most to lose from unsustainable practices.

Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, R. Prahbu and E. Wollenberg. 1995. Principles, Criteria and Indicators: Applying Ockham’s Razor to the People-Forestry Link. CIFOR Working Paper No. 8. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Ruitenbeek, H. Jack and Cynthia Cartier. 1998. Rational Exploitations: Economic Criteria & Indicators for Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests. CIFOR working paper, draft of April 1998.

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

CIFOR: -

CIFOR – BAG: -

CIFOR – ECON: 3.1 3.3

CCFM: 6.3

Idaho: -

GFE: -

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

CIFOR-BAG 1.2 and CCFM 6.3 deal with essentially the same concepts, the distribution of and dependence upon economic rents that flow to persons and communities from managed forests. A more inclusive statement of the concepts covered by these criteria are incorporated in criteria C3.1 "Equitable access to economic values" and C3.3 "Equitable distribution of economic rent" from the Ruitenbeek and Cartier (1998) working paper for CIFOR. Because of this, CIFOR-BAG 1.2 has been revised to generally restate the intent of all four of these criteria.

This criterion focuses on measurable dimensions of economic equity related to forest management, namely the degree of dependence of local people and communities relying upon the forestry sector for their economic well-being and the distribution of economic rents among forest actors. Further research is required to develop measures of non-timber dependence and to determine the number of forest communities that still rely on subsistence activities for a significant portion of their livelihood. It is likely that some aspects of human reliance on forests, such as psychological benefits or ecological services never will be measurable, but they must be acknowledged as society considers its responsibility for sustainable development.

possible but care should be taken to determine the primary thrust of the criterion.

Ecological /

Biophysical: -

Social: -

Economic: CCFM 6.3

Forest Mngt: -

Yield & harvest: -

Does not fit: -

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