• Criterion – B: Forest management provides access to the resource (Evaluation)
• Criterion – C: Concerned stakeholders have a right to participate in open and meaningful public participation processes in order to influence management. (Evaluation)
• Criterion – D: Policy, planning and institutional framework support sustainable forest management (Evaluation)
• Criterion – E: Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services (Evaluation)
• Criterion – F: The management plan is implemented and effective in moving toward stated goals. (Evaluation)
• Criterion – G: An effective monitoring and control system audits management’s conformity with planning (Evaluation)
• Criterion – H: Forest based human health issues (Evaluation)
• Criterion – I: The relationship between maintaining forested ecosystems and human culture and activities is recognized as important (Evaluation)
• Criterion – J: Recognize and respect Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights and aboriginal values) (Evaluation)
• Criterion – L: There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents (Evaluation)
• Criterion – M: Forest management is socially efficient (Evaluation)
• Criterion – N: There is a recognizable balance between human activities and environmental conditions (Evaluation)
• Criterion – O: Sustainability of forest communities (Evaluation)
• Criterion – P: Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity (Evaluation)
• Criterion – Q: Ecosystem function is maintained (Evaluation)
• Criterion – R: Landscape Patterns Support Native Populations (Evaluation)
• Criterion – S: Species Diversity (Evaluation)
• Criterion – T: Ecosystem diversity (Evaluation)
• Criterion – U: Incidence of disturbance and stress (Evaluation)
• Criterion – V: Genetic Diversity is Maintained (Evaluation)
• Criterion – W: Ecosystem resilience (Evaluation)
• Criterion – Y: Extant Biomass (Evaluation)
• Criterion – Z: Physical Environmental Factors (Evaluation)

• Indicator – B2. Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure (Evaluation)
• Indicator – B4. Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare (Evaluation)
• Indicator – B5. Ownership and use rights and responsibilities to resources (inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims (Evaluation)
• Indicator – C1. The process should be inclusive with all interests represented (Evaluation)
• Indicator – C2. Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – C3. Management staff and stakeholders should recognize and respect the interests and rights of each other (Evaluation)
• Indicator – C4. The decision making processes must be transparent such that participants are confident that their opinions and values will be considered during the process and be reflected in the final product (Evaluation)
• Indicator – D1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional coordination on land use and forest management exist (Evaluation)
• Indicator – D2. There is a permanent forest estate (PFS), adequately protected by law, which is the basis for sustainable management, including both protection and production forest (Evaluation)
• Indicator – D3. Damages are compensated in a fair manner (Evaluation)
• Indicator – D4. There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E3. Policy and planning are based on recent and accurate information (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E4. Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functional areas of the forest, with respect to their spatial distribution (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E5. Maps of resources, management, ownership and inventories are available (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E6. Silvicultural systems are prescribed appropriate to forest type, production of desired products and condition, and assure forest establishment, composition, and growth. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E7. Yield regulation by area and/or volume prescribed (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E8. Harvesting systems and equipment are prescribed to match forest conditions in order to reduce impact on wildlife, soil productivity, residual stand conditions and water quality and quantity. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E9. Annual and period removals calculated by area and/or volume prescribed (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E10. Mean annual increment for forest type and age class (Evaluation)
• Indicator – E11. Distribution of, and changes in, the landbase available for timber production are identified. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – D5. Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F1. Pre-harvest inventory satisfactory completed (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F2. Transportation systems are planned and constructed prior to harvesting and according to acceptable standards (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F3. Actual VS. Plan performance is measured and recorded (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F4. An effective monitoring and control system audits management conformity with planning. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F5. Continuous inventories are established and measured regularly (Evaluation)
• Indicator – F6. Documentation and records of all forest management activities are kept in a form that makes it possible for monitoring to occur (Evaluation)
• Indicator – H2. Forest managers cooperate with public health authorities regarding illnesses related to forest management and potable water related concerns (Evaluation)
• Indicator – H3. Forestry employers follow ILO working and safety conditions and take responsibility for the forest-related health risks of workers (Evaluation)
• Indicator – J1. Extent to which forest planning and management processes consider and meet legal obligations with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights (Evaluation)
• Indicator – J2. Assess the extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based opportunities (Evaluation)
• Indicator – J3. Extent to which forest management planning takes into account the protection of unique or significant Aboriginal social, cultural or spiritual sites (Evaluation)
• Indicator – J5. Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L1.Mechanisms exist for sharing the economic benefits derived from forest management (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L2. Management of NTFP reflects the interests and rights of local stakeholders (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L3. Competitiveness of resource industries (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L4. Contribution to the national economy (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L5. Productive capacity (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L6. Opportunities exist for local and forest dependent people to get employment and training from forest companies (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L7. Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or ILO standards (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L8. Total employment in all forest-related sectors (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L8a. Employment of local population in forest management (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L9. Number of communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L10. Index of the diversity of the industrial base (Evaluation)
• Indicator – L11. Diversity of forest use at the community level (Evaluation)
• Indicator - M1. Non-timber values (Evaluation)
• Indicator – M3. Availability and use of recreational opportunities are maintained (Evaluation)
• Indicator – M4. Total Expenditures by individuals on activities related to non-timber use are maintained (Evaluation)
• Indicator – M6. Existence of economic rents: Total harvesting revenues exceed harvesting costs. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – M7. Estimated distribution of rent capture. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Q2. Ecologically Sensitive Areas, Especially Buffer Zones along Water Courses are Protected (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Q3. The status of decomposition and nutrient shows no significant change (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Q4. The capacity of the forest to regenerate naturally is ensured (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R1. Corridors of unlogged forests are retained. (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R2. Protected areas are maintained to protect rare, unique and representative species and features (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R3. Canopy opening is minimized (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R4&R5. Percentage and extent, in area, of vegetation types, and structural class relative to the historical condition and total forest area (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R7. Level of Fragmentation and Connectedness of Forest Ecosystem Components (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R8. Rate and total area of forest land converted to non-forest land cover, classed by major forest type (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R9. Road network density, type, use and location (Evaluation)
• Indicator – R10. Coarse woody debris and snags should be retained at functional levels (Evaluation)
• Indicator – S1. Representation of selected key and sensitive guilds occur in the community guild structure (Evaluation)
• Indicator – S2. Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species (Evaluation)
• Indicator – S5. Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna (Evaluation)
• Indicator – T1. Populations of indigenous species are likely to persist (Evaluation)
• Indicator – U1. Area and severity of insect attack and disease infestation (Evaluation)
• Indicator – U2. Area and severity of disease infestation (Evaluation)
• Indicator – U3. Area and severity of area burned (Evaluation)
• Indicator – U4. Pollutant levels in the ecosystem (Evaluation)
• Indicator – U5. Area and severity of occurrence of exotic species detrimental to forest condition (Evaluation)
• Indicator – V1. Implementation of an in situ/ex situ genetic conservation strategy for commercial and endangered forest vegetation species (Evaluation)
• Indicator – V2. Population sizes and reproductive success are adequate to maintain levels of genetic diversity (Evaluation)
• Indicator – V3. Use of scientifically-based seed transfer rules and seed orchard zones in planting native species (Evaluation)
• Indicator – V4. Management does not significantly change gene frequencies (Evaluation)
• Indicator – W1. Percentage of area successfully naturally regenerated and artificially regenerated (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Z1. Percentage of harvested area having greater than 25% of the area with degraded soil quality, including soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Z2. Water quality as measured by water chemistry, turbidity, etc (Evaluation)
• Indicator – Z3. Trends and timing of events in stream flows from forest catchments. (Evaluation)