Criterion – Q: Ecosystem function is maintained

Consultant's Initials:

CKW

Source:

CIFOR

Identification No. in source:

2.1

 

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

Q

Class:

Ecological/

biophysical

Recommendation (after field testing)

Yes

Box A:

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

Ecosystem function is maintained.

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)

5

Is it applicable for all landowners?

5

Sensitive?

5

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

5

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

3

How relevant is this criterion?

5

Useable?

4

Box C:

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

Ecosystem functionality is the very crux of ecological sustainability. However, it needs to be precisely defined and specified which components of ecosystem functions are being measured. The indicators under the CIFOR set are not as complete as some would like. It fits into theory essentially as a truism. Sustainability is a goal or objective seeking a specific ecosystem condition (i.e. ecosystem integrity). The goal needs to be explicitly stated while the state (integrity) can be measured or evaluated.

Some authors question the scientific validity of concepts such as "health" and "integrity" as applied to ecosystems (see Wickium and Davis, 1995).

Box D:

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

Kaufmann and others,1994. An Ecological Basis for Ecosystem Management. United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 22 p.

Keystone Center. 1991. Biological Diversity on Federal Lands. Report of a Keystone Policy Dialogue. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO.

Keystone Center. 1996. Ecosystem Management. Report of a Keystone policy dialogue. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. various paging.

Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Wickium, D; Davies, R.W. 1995. Ecosystem health and integrity? Canadian Journal of Botany. 73:997-1000.

Box E:

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

CIFOR 2.4.1: -

CIFOR – BAG: -

CCFM: 6.3 1.2 1.1 2.1 1.3 3.1

Idaho: -

GFE: -

Box F:

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

This criterion seems to be essential to sustainable forests, so much so that it is a fundamental assumption to the entire concept of sustainability.

Box G: Geo-Political

Evaluate the geo-political scale on which the Criterion operates.

Justify: original revised

(a)

(j)

Global

X

North America

X

Intermountain

X

West

Study area

X

Tenure

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

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: X

Social: X

Economic: -

Forest Mngt: -

Yield & harvest: -

Does not fit: -

Box J:

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

N/A