Criterion – M: Forest management is socially efficient

Consultant's Initials:

GSA

Source:

CCFM

Identification No. in source:

5.0

 

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

M

Class:

Social, Economic

Recommendation (after field testing)

Yes

Box A:

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

Original wording: Multiple benefits of forests to society.

Revised Wording: Forest management is socially efficient.

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)

2

5

Will it produce replicable results? (reliable)

N/A

N/A

Diagnostically specific? (valid)

2

5

Is it applicable for all landowners?

4

5

Sensitive?

N/A

N/A

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

5

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

N/A

N/A

How relevant is this criterion?

5

5

Useable?

2

5

Box C:

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

Maintaining a flow of economic and other benefits is an important dimension of sustainable development. The purpose of this criterion is to describe and, where possible, measure the economic and social benefits derived from managing forests and also to consider the capacity of the natural resource base and institutional base to continue to supply those benefits.

Forests provide a multitude of benefits. The production processes involved in the delivery of forest products contribute to the economy through the payment of wages, taxes, profits and other costs, such as stumpage fees. Non-timber, non-traditional and non-market benefits also are important.

Box D:

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

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers; Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Headquarters, Ottawa, Ont. 1992. National Forest Strategy. Sustainable forests: A Canadian commitment.

Box E:

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

CIFOR:

CIFOR – BAG:

CCFM:

Idaho:

GFE:

Box F:

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

CIFOR and CIFOR-BAG include few economic criteria, especially relating to economic efficiency issues. The CCFM criterion "Multiple Benefits of Forests to Society" addresses this quite completely, but is not stated in the Tropenbos format for criteria. The criterion has been restated in this format.

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

X

X

North America

X

X

Intermountain West

X

X

Study area

X

X

Tenure

X

X

Site

X

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

Composition

Perturbation

Not applicable

X

X

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 Criterion has information value for the following areas/criteria:

Ecological /

Biophysical:

Social:

Economic: X

Forest Mngt:

Yield & harvest:

Does not fit: 

Box J:

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

Forest management is socially efficient.