Principle – Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.

Criterion- Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource.

Indicator - Original Wording: (CIFOR-BAG 2.3) Agreement exists on rights and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders. (CIFOR-BAG 1.1.1 Ownership and use rights to resources (inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims. Final Wording: Ownership and use rights and responsibilities to resources (inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims.

Box B: Definition:

There are a wide variety of perceptions possible amongst stakeholders (who have very different interests in the resources) regarding who "owns" and has the right to access resources in a given area. When this indicator is met there is virtual agreement, possibly legalized, amongst the stakeholders’ views, including some form of recognition of pre-existing rights of local peoples to the resources (CIFOR Resource book, p. 4).

CIFOR-BAG notes that "agreement" suggests a common vision among stakeholders and a lack of conflict about the allocation of rights and responsibilities. Relevant stakeholders will be those involved in management (including use) of forest resources, both formally and informally. "Rights" represent an agreement among stakeholders that the person/entity who has the right has a legitimate interest in, benefit from, and some, varying degree of control over the resource. "Responsibility" refers to the obligation to manage the resource.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners:

While ownership and use rights vary by tenure holder, the issue of ownership and use rights is applicable across all tenures.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 1.1.3 3.2.1

CIFOR – BAG: 1.1.4 2.3 2.3.1

CCFM: 6.2.4 6.1.1 6.5.6

Notes:

Aboriginal ownership and use rights, addressed in CCFM 6.1.1 are ascribed at scales up to and including global rights, however, non-Aboriginal ownership and use rights normally operate on more local scales and will vary from tenure holder to tenure holder. Consequently, the tenure level is the scale at which measurement of this indicator best occurs.

Notes: Measurement of this indicator is diagnostic of current conditions only.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

From a practical context, rights and responsibilities typically go along with ownership and use rights, helping to identify and motivate responsible parties. Respect for pre-existing claims fulfills an ethical and legal requirement, but it also provides reassurance to people with current claims that their claims may continue to be recognized and respected. The practical assumption behind this indicator is that if stakeholders agree or "buy-in" to their rights and responsibilities it will be more likely that stakeholders will follow and enforce agreed upon rules (CIFOR, 1998).

In the North American context, land ownership rights are firmly established, legally described, registered and protected. Other formal legal rights such as water rights and mineral rights are similarly duly recognized and protected. Informal rights, including traditional access rights, are much harder to establish the existence of and are either defined through the courts or are negotiated rights. Most rights under this category are addressed in indicator B2.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Clarity and agreement on ownership and use rights to resources, especially those that respect pre-existing claims, will increase local people’s feeling of security regarding the local resources (in other words, their level of confidence that resources will not be taken from them or their children). This is relevant to sustainable management because when people feel some security of access, it appears that they are more likely to take a longer term view toward resource management. They may even make decisions, which result in long-term conservation despite short-term sacrifice. In addition, acknowledgement of rights is relevant from the perspective of justice, which forms a part of human well-being (which is, in turn an element of human sustainability) (CIFOR, 1998; Prabhu et al., 1996).

Sustainability is likely to be enhanced when rights and responsibilities pertaining to management are clear. The rights provide motivation to the managers to manage responsibly; and the responsibility means that the management functions are more likely to be performed.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Ownership and use rights, including pre-existing claims, can be divided into two categories: formal and informal rights and ownership. Identifying formal ownership and use rights that are a result of constitutional rights (e.g., Aboriginal rights), legal rights (e.g., property ownership or mineral rights) or rights that arise through management or other plans. These rights and ownership obligations can be listed for a specific jurisdiction and an assessment completed of the extent to which the forest manager has met these obligations could be conducted (Aboriginal rights and obligations are discussed in indicator J1). This comparison could be completed in the following ways:

1) Litigation or complaints of violations of these rights;

2) Forest manager assessments of the extent to which obligations have been upheld;

3) Stakeholder assessments of the extent to which obligations have been upheld;

4) An assessment of the forest manager’s awareness of obligations; and

5) Maps or documents available to the forest manager that outline these obligations.

This indicator, and these measurement methods are duplicates of those for CCFM 6.1.1 (Aboriginal and Treaty rights). Consequently data collection for these methods could be conducted sympathetically with the Aboriginal indicator although sampling strategies would need to be distinctly different.

Informal rights are those that arise from traditional or historic use of the forest. These rights are much more difficult to assess and qualitative techniques may be needed to assess the existence of these rights. CIFOR-BAG qualitative techniques such as historical trends analysis, historical transects of landscape, ICM, participatory mapping and access to resources by generation pebble distribution method can be used to abstractly address stakeholder assessment of the extent to which obligations have been upheld (CIFOR, 1998).

Box L: Data Required:

Data Sources:

• Maps of land ownership and use rights
• Descriptions of rights and obligations associated with the forest management unit (e.g., the forest management plan).

Data for formal ownership rights should be relatively available from the forest management tenure holder. This data should be fairly reliable. Data for use rights (e.g., firewood harvesting permits, non-timber forest product use, recreational use etc.) will be more readily available for commercial or permitted activities although probably from multiple sources or different branches of the agency or organizations. Non-permitted activities such as non-commercial berry harvesting, which may be defined as a use right, may not be well mapped nor even numbers or quantities of materials or individuals known. Formal use rights for non-permitted activities may have to be obtained from managers best estimates or experience.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data sources for this test included:

• USDA-FS. 1990. Boise National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
• Boise State University, Department of Geoscience GIS/Facility. 1998. Land Ownership in the Boise Study Area.

Box N: Example Results:

Land Ownership

Land ownership within the Boise study area was calculated using a GIS-based analysis of digital data by the BSU GIS lab (BSU, 1998). The largest landowner in the area is the Boise National Forest (Boise and Payette National Forests) and the smallest land owner is the Boise Cascade Corporation. Cadastral records and ownership title are maintained in country land records.

Other Legal Rights

Within the study area, a number of other legal rights, particularly mineral, grazing and water rights, utility corridors and other rights have been recognized. Records for these formal rights can be obtained from State agencies or from the counties. The 1990 BNF plan summarizes concerns and issues regarding instream water rights for the Boise National Forest. These rights, authorized by Federal or State law, are being quantified, documented and recorded for the area.

The General Mining Law of 1872 (and amendments) allows citizens to obtain, upon discovery, title to the land that is conveyed as a property right to the mineral and, through the patent process to the surface (USDA-FS, 1990). The 1990 BNF plan notes that over 10,300 mining claims encompassing about 212,800 acres, currently exist on the Forest. While no major mines are currently operating a number of small operations are producing gold, silver and building stone. Similarly, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 authorizes the government to lease land for oil, gas and other nonlocatable minerals. The Mineral Materials Act of 1947 allows the National Forest to let rights for common variety minerals including stone, clay and other road materials. In 1988, 9,178 tons of sand and gravel were mined with most of these materials mined for use by the Forest Service. As of the 1990 plan, overall approximately 94% of the Forest was available for mineral entry and location.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

In the North American context, much of the formal ownership data is readily available and easily accessed consequently it is easier to monitor over time. Collecting informal data may be part of planning, or public participation processes or collected through bioregional mapping techniques. This process could be fairly time consuming and potentially costly. Some of this information may be considered too sensitive to map or record (e.g., traditional use areas, aboriginal use areas etc.).

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

This indicator provides high value information. Forest managers do need to know who else is using and/or managing the resources in the forest, and clarity of boundaries and/or use rights makes this easier.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

The strength of this measure is that it provides an assessment of whether or not there is agreement on who should be involvement in management and who can do specific activities. The weaknesses are associated with the difficulty in measuring non-commercial, non-permitted use rights and informal (e.g., traditional) rights.

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

Yes. Ownership and use rights and responsibilities to resources (inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims

Box S: References:

• CIFOR. 1998. Criteria and Indicator Resource Book. Pg. 16. Bogor, Indonesia
• CIFOR Methods Testing Team. 1998. Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well Being. Bogor, Indonesia
• Colchester, M., 1993. Forest Peoples and Sustainability. In: M. Colchester and L. Lohmann (eds.) The Struggle for the Land and the Fate of the Forest. World Rainforest Movement/The Ecologist/Zed Books, New York, pp. 61-95.
• Colfer, C. J.P. with R. G. Dudley, 1993. Shifting Cultivators of Indonesia: Marauders or Managers of the Forest? FAO Community Forestry Case Study Series No. 6, FAO, Rome.
• Colfer, C. J.P., 1995. Who Counts Most in Sustainable Forest Management? Working Paper No 7, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Colfer, C. J. P., Wadley, R. L, Harwell, E., and R. Prabhu, 1997. Security of Intergenerational access to resources: Developing Criteria and Indicators. CIFOR Working Paper 18, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Diaw, M. C., 1997. Si Nda bot and Ayong: Shifting Cultivation, Land Use and Property Rights in Southern Cameroon. Network Paper 21e, ODI, London, UK.
• Momberg, F., Atk, K., and M. Sirait., 1996. Drawing on Local Knowledge: A Community Mapping Training Manual. Ford Foundation, Yayasan Karya Sosial Pancur Kasih, WWF Indonesia Programme, Indonesia.
• Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. J. P., Venkateswarlu, P., Lay, C. T., Soekmadi, R. and Wollenberg, E., 1996. Testing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Forests: Phase I Final Report. CIFOR Special Publication, Bogor, Indonesia.
• USDA-FS. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest. Intermountain Region.

Appendix:

Informal Ethnographic Interviews:

CIFOR Principal Scientist and Anthropologist, Carol Colfer, conducted a series of ethnographic interviews as part of the Boise test of C&I. While Dr. Colfer was only able to participate in the study for a few days, the interviews she conducted provided valuable insight into the indicators from local people’s perspectives. To retain confidentiality, individual respondents are identified only with a set of initials (m=male, f=female). Comments obtained relevant to this indicator are summarized here below.