Criterion – O: Sustainability of forest communities

Consultant's Initials:

GSA

Source:

CCFM

Identification No. in source:

6.3

 

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

O

Class:

Social, Economic

Recommendation (after field testing)

No

Box A:

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

Sustainability of forest communities.

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)

N/A

Diagnostically specific ? (valid)

3

Is it applicable for all landowners?

5

Sensitive?

N/A

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

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

N/A

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:

CCFM 6.3 was not selected because 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. Because of this, CIFOR-BAG 1.2 has been and incorporates the CCFM 6.3 criterion of "Sustainability of Forest Communities"

Box D:

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

See references for the revised criterion.

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: 1.2

CIFOR: -

CCFM: C3.1 C3.3

Idaho: -

GFE: -

Box F:

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. Because of this, CIFOR-BAG 1.2 has been revised and incorporates the CCFM 6.3 criterion of "Sustainability of Forest Communities"

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

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

Task Leader: 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: CIFOR-BAG 1.2

Forest Mngt:

Yield & harvest

Does not fit:

Box J:

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

N/A