Principle – Society accepts responsibilities for resource management.

Criterion- Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource.

Indicator - Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare.

Box B: Definition:

Destruction of natural resources here is considered distinct from a gradual depletion of resources that may come from use of that resource, e.g., depletion of fishing stocks due to over use. It refers to destruction incurred as a result of intentional action, such as "grudge fires," or harvesting done in a careless way, or for example the use of commercial poisons in fishing. Depending on the understanding of natural resource management, and local people’s motivation to care for resources over the long term, the amount of destruction will vary (cf. Guha 1993, for examples from India; Peluso 1992, for Indonesia). In a North American context this indicator might be viewed as intentional or careless impacts or vandalism.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners:

This indicator is applicable equally to all landowners.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR – BAG: 1.1.4 1.1.5 2.3

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Destruction of natural resources suggests the absence of a sense of stewardship toward the resources that we believe is necessary for sustainability. Since local people are at some level dependent on local resources, the destruction of local resources is unlikely to contribute to human well-being.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Previous CIFOR tests found this indicator relevant because the level of avoidable destruction clearly impacts the sustainability of the resources over the long-term. The more people are interested and successful in avoiding this type of destruction the greater the probability that resource use will be sustainable, because unnecessary negative impacts or stresses on the resource will be minimized. It is also relevant because it reveals the level of value and respect for resources by local peoples, which is a contributing factor towards sustainable management (CIFOR Resource book, p. 57).

While we agree with the above statement, this test found that this indicator is a result in part of a number of indicators particularly BOISE B1-3 (CIFOR-BAG 2.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5). Testing the area or amount of destruction of resources is, however, difficult to assess and it is difficult to make a specific causal link to fairness or security of access as the root of the problem. We feel that direct measures of resource conditions such as forest fragmentation, soil conditions etc. are more appropriate measures of the full extent to which all stakeholder (including forest managers) are caring for the resource.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement methods for this variable would include documentation (and analysis by number of events, percent of area, severity of damage and causal factors) of the sites where destruction or vandalism has occurred.

Box L: Data Required:

Vandalism cases are relatively well documented in forest manager files and in police records. Other types of destruction of resources e.g., careless harvesting may be documented in Forest Practices monitoring or compliance reports if the action is in violation of a regulation or best practice.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

• Boise National Forest records
• Forest Practices Code of Idaho monitoring reports.

Box N: Example Results:

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

This indicator is difficult to assess both in terms of determining what qualifies as "destruction" as well as determining the causal factors associated with it. Self reports of destruction would be very difficult to obtain as actual vandalism is illegal.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Measurement of this indicator could best be categorized as data and has relatively low information value.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Rejected.

This indicator was rejected as an abstract and difficult indicator to measure and to assess the meaning of the results.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

No.

Box S: References: