Principle - Yield and Quality of Forest Goods are Sustainable

Criterion- Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management.

Indicator – Damages are compensated in a fair manner.

Box B: Definition:

Exploiting timber resources can involve different levels of unintentional or careless damage being done to community property, or even local peoples being injured or killed (e.g. by logging trucks). It can also involve damage done intentionally (i.e. the clearing of local agricultural areas and replacement with commercial species by the logging company) or the cutting down of fruit trees to make a logging road or skid trail. These damages might be avoided, minimized, compensated for (by way of financial compensation or replacement). Or none of the above.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

N/A

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR 1.1.3 Means of conflict resolution function without violence.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Damages: In this case damages refer to locally perceived loss. This could range from damage to property (community or individual), to harm to people, or to loss in water quality.

Externalization of costs: Passing on environmental and societal costs to others, (e.g. A forestry company passing on costs of local soil erosion to local people, by causing it and not paying damages or attempting to remedy).

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :

The relevance is based primarily on the issue of justice, which is an important element of human well-being (which in turn is an element of human sustainability) (Prabhu et. al. 1996). For the timber company to be able to simultaneously benefit from the resources, while passing the costs (in the form of damages) along to the community, would indicate an unjust, and therefore less than sustainable system. Not only would the community be paying a price which it should not have to bear, but the company would be externalizing the costs, and would therefore be less likely to be motivated to decrease the level of damage incurred (Panaytou 1993). Finally, while some damage may be truly "compensatable", such as the accidental destruction of a piece of machinery, much damage is not. No amount of financial or other compensation will ever amount to the original value. Damage to a person, or to a sacred site, or accidental eradication of an endemic species, for example, may permanently decrease human (and/or environmental) well-being even if financial compensation is paid. In these cases, avoidance of damage in the first place is key to sustainablity.

• The frequency of damage to local property.
• The frequency and adequacy of compensation in cases where damage does occur.
• No direct methods of measurement. It may be difficult to obtain accurate descriptions of damage incurred if there are no open and recorded compensation mechanisms established.

Box L: Data Required:

Information regarding the amount and nature of damage caused, measure taken to prevent damage, and compensation rewards.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test::

N/A

Box N: Example Results:

N/A

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

N/A

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

N/A

Rejected

Why: In the North American setting, with a well established court system all damage claims regardless of amount would be resolved in a manner which would be deemed as "fair" by the courts.

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

No